An argument for putting produsage in the dictionary

After reading the first installment of Henry Jenkin’s interview with Axel Bruns I believe I have finally gotten my head around the concept of produsage. More importantly however I now understand why it is useful to have a term that encapsulates a wealth of concepts that essentially embody the same (or very similar) ideas. Let me try and share some of this understanding.

We are witnessing the dawning of a new age, where produsage is being born. Yet many of us remain obliviously ignorant. It amazes me that people still cling avidly to traditional business and communication models when there is such a dominant consensus that humanity is moving beyond the previously separate forms of producer, distributor, and user/receiver/consumer [Flew 2005; Bruns 2007]. The emergence and adoption of technologies like open source software (see also OSI) and Web 2.0 are enabling each of us to realise our potential as involved, interactive, and intelligent participatory beings [Jenkins 2002; Bruns 2008]. Slowly, we are becoming consciously aware of our new reality.

In short, for those of you who don’t know (or have never heard of) what produsage is, it is an umbrella term coined by Axel Bruns that describes the overarching new trend of user-led content creation/production. Common examples of produsage include wikis (particularly Wikipedia), open source software (like FireFox and Linux), citizen journalism, and online gaming communities (see Second Life and/or The Sims and/or W.O.W). Produsage.org defines produsage as the act of produsers (a hybrid of the words production and user), and has identified four key principles that are prevalent in all produsage environments:

• open participation and communal evaluation
• fluid heterarchy and ad-hoc meritocracy
• unfinished artifacts and continuing processes
• common property and individual rewards

For greater depth and exploration of these principles please see Produsage.org or Bruns’s companion book Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life and Beyond: From Production to Produsage.

Jenkins [2008] has described the term produsage as “somewhat awkward” while others (myself previously included) have wondered whether it is just another industry related buzz word that will fizzle into nothing. Either way this lack in eloquence does not diminish the need for an alternative way to express the resurgence of commons-based approaches to production and use that is occurring [Bruns 2007; Produsage.org]. Perhaps it is this awkwardness, or because we are slow in adapting to change, that produsage (the word) has not (yet) taken off. This semester I have been increasingly convinced that “produsage” and “produser” have in fact earned their place our dictionaries, and our vocabularies.

Oxymoronically the shift in the information age towards digitisation, convergence, and participatory culture (reflected most significantly in the differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0) has been gradual [Bruns 2008; Jenkins 2008]. Lacking a revolutionary upheaval, we have tried to fit these changes and new developments into our pre-existing conceptual frameworks [Dwyer 2005; Venturelli 2005; Bruns 2008]. Unfortunately this practice is largely counterproductive, particularly in an era where innovation is a necessary part of the evolutionary process [Dwyer 2005; Venturelli 2005]. Bruns [2008] insists that “if we continue to use the old models, the old language to describe the new, we lose a level of definition and clarity which can ultimately lead us to misunderstand our new reality”.

Although many of us may not even realise we are taking part in produsage, we all (well, those of us comfortably sitting on this side of the digital divide anyway) have the potential to do so. It is our willingness to share content and intellectual property that makes this “iterative, ongoing, evolutionary process” of produsage work [Bruns 2008]. Our ability to remix, repurpose, and recontextualise available information, as well as contribute our own, is the real power behind the palimpsest of knowledge that is the World Wide Web [Bruns 2008].

Bruns [2008] imparts that “it doesn’t matter so much what we call it in the end, but a term like ‘produsage’ provides a blank slate which we can collectively inscribe with new meanings, new shared understandings of the environments we now find ourselves in”. If understanding our world and the environment in which we operate is generally considered a crucial component in securing a future that we can be optimistic about then I say let’s take the term produsage and run with it. What better time to expand our understanding than now?

Other Bloggers with insightful posts on this topic:

Bre

Brendan

Cassie

Daniel K

Daniel Y

Emma S

Kate

Kato

Lucy

Please also see my COMMENT in response to Megallagher's blog

REFERENCES

Bruns, A. 2007. The Future Is User-Led: The Path towards Widespread Produsage. http://produsage.org/files/The%20Future%20Is%20User-Led%20(PerthDAC%202007).pdf (accessed April 25, 2008).

Bruns, A. 2008. Chapter One: Introduction. In Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage, A. Bruns, 1-7. New York: Peter Lang.

Bruns, A. 2008. KCB201 Virtual Cultures: Week Eight Podcast. http://www.slideshare.net/Snurb/kcb201-week-8-slidecast-produsage?src=embed (accessed April 25, 2008).

Dwyer, J. 2005. Communication Foundations. In Communication in Business: Strategies and Skills, 3^rd ed., J. Dwyer, 3-97. Sydney: Pearson.

Flew, T. 2005. Creative Industries. In New Media: An Introduction, 2^nd ed., T. Flew, 115-138. Melbourne: Oxford.

Jenkins, H. 2002. Interactive audiences. In The New Media Book, D. Harries, 157-170. London: BFI Publishing.

Jenkins, H. 2008. From Production to Produsage: Interview with Axel Bruns. In The Official Weblog of Henry Jenkins, H. Jenkins. http://henryjenkins.org/ (accessed May 11, 2008).

Produsage.org. 2008. From Production to Produsage: Research into User-Led Content Creation. http://produsage.org/ (accessed May 11, 2008).

Venturelli, S. 2005. Culture and the Creative Economy in the Information Age. In Creative Industries, ed. J. Hartley, 391-398. Oxford: Blackwell.

How Do Communities Evaluate Quality?

Citizen journalism is similar in nature to a peer assessment. Whereby, the quality of content is evaluated by individuals over time who then critique and build upon the existing information, in a snowball like effect. The more attention a post attracts (eg through comments or rating systems) the more credible and transparent a source becomes. It is through this peer assessment process that the reputation of a citizen journalist is built and the quality of the information produced is improved.

As humans it is in our nature to analyse and critique the information we receive. For example, Wikipedia, depsite being disputed as a credible source, studies have found that the information presented is generally accurate and of a reasonable standard (see here). Open participation allows a post to be freely and immediately evaluated by anyone. This may result in either positive or negative feedback, in effect rating the quality of the post. This process is constantly evolving, overlapping and interwoven. As Bruns (2008, 79) states, "citizen journalism is a clear example of fluid heterarchy, ad hoc meritocracy; a fundamental principle of produsage... The community governs itself through a constant process of mutual evaluation through peer commentary and criticism."

By Ella, Nat and Emma.

Reference

Bruns, A. 2008. News Blogs and Citizen Journalism: Perpetual Collaboration in Evaluating the News in Bruns, A. Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage, New York: Peter Lang, 69-100.

"equipotentiality"

Anybody else wondering what equipotentiality is? Axel Bruns refers to it in this weeks reading as well as on produsage.org. I was curious so I googled it...
ALAS! Wikipedia was not very helpful on the matter this time round, and google didn't turn up much. I went a little further and searched for Michel Bauwens (who Axel attributes the concept to) who advocates, explores, and documents peer-to-peer practices.
I'm still not very clear about what EQUIPOTENTIALITY means, but as far as I can gather in the context Axel uses it, it is best understood as the opposite of credentiality. It relates back to peer-to-peer production, open source software, and produsage in that equipotentiality is the "process of allowing for self-selection of participants, followed by communcal validation, followed by open access... a priori decision to open participation to anyone that has the potential to have the right skills, rather than to anyone with credetials" (see here).

For further interest here are some fellow bloggers who have showed an interest in this concept and related theories:

Richard Poynder
Sam Rose
Intergral Visioning


Reference

Bruns, A. 2008. Open Source Software Development: Probabilistic Eyeballs in Bruns, A. Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage, New York: Peter Lang, pp.37-68.

How is open source different from commercial production?

In open source the source code is freely and openly available for everyone to view, edit and use, within a limited-rights licence. For example: FireFox and Linux. In the closed source, commercial model, source code remains confidential and must be bought by the end user. For example, the average user cannot access the source code for Windows Internet Explorer; only the in-house software developers are allowed access. The business model for open source software is to provide services to the commmunity, where as closed source's aim is to sell a finished product. The success of open source hinges on the active contribution and interest of users. In contrast, the motivations for the success of closed source production is the fiscal benefit to the commercial production team.

Open source is an example of produsage. Axel Bruns has idenitified three fundamental principles that define the term produsage:

1. Open participation and communal evaluation. Open source software is an example of this because the project is open for anybody to make contributions and evaluate and test its usability, a key feature of web 2.0. The software is continually updated through collaborative participation and new updates are available almost everyday (Bruns, 2008, p42). In contrast, closed source epitomises web 1.0 where users had no ability to contribute to software development. The availability of new closed source software is stagnant and relies on set release dates for 'new editions'.

2. Fluid Heterarchy, ad hoc meritocracy. In open source contributors grow in the community through their esteem and influence on the project. There is no set dictator for the duration of the project. Leaders are fluid and ever changing according to their abilities and the merit of their contributions. In closed source the production development team is subject to traditional hierarchical structures. There is an appointed leader for the duration of the project and each employee has set individual tasks to complete.

3. Unfinished artefacts, continuing process. In open source the project is always under development, continually evolving with no set end date. Whereas commercial production aims at delivering a complete package to meet a set deadline.

By Emma, Ella and Nat.


Reference

Bruns, A. 2008. Open Source Software Development: Probabilistic Eyeballs in Bruns, A. Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage, New York: Peter Lang, pp.37-68.

Re: KCB201 Asmnt2 Criterion Matrix Query

To all my fellow KCB201ers - during tutorials today we had some discussions about the criterion matrix for assignment two - specifically the "evidence of participation in online social networks and critical interaction with peers" section. Below is my email correspondence with Axel:

"Hi Axel,

During my tutorial today there has been considerable debate about interpreting section four of the criterion matrix for assignment two.

It seems to be the understanding of myself and my peers that "evidence of participation in online social networks and critical interaction with peers" related to your comments on other blogs and does not apply to your actual blog entries. Our tutor Thomas has interpreted this section of the criteria as relating to your comments as well as how you link out to other resources in your blog and comment on these resources in the text of your blog.

Could you please clarify this?

Thanks, it’s appreciated by me and my peers!

Ella"

And very prompt response:

"G'day Ella !

Thanks for getting in touch about this. Please also have a look at the way the required standard for this criterion is described for each grade, which might help explain it further:

* at the very basic level, we expect you to engage with your peers via comments on their blogs (and responses to their comments on yours, where appropriate) - what we're looking for here, and what will be seen as evidence of more sophisticated engagement, are constructive and insightful comments and intelligent and respectful discussion: in other words, a mere "I agree" or off-topic remarks won't rate as well as thoughtful responses which promote further discussion between you and with others

* at a more sophisticated level, you'll find that bloggers also often conduct discussion and debate not simply by commenting on one another's blogs, but by posting substantial responses on their own blog which pick up on topics explored by others (these could be your fellow students, or outside bloggers and others authors whose work you have found online) and add significant further original thought - we would see this as evidence of a higher level of social networking and interaction with peers

So, put simply: if you see interesting ideas on someone else's blog and add a comment there, then that's a start (and the more insightful and constructive the comment, the better you'll do as we mark you on this criterion).

If you see someone else's post or article, and this inspires you to publish an original blog post of your own in which you link to and engage in substantial dialogue with their ideas (perhaps even getting a real back-and-forth conversation going), then that's an even more sophisticated way of engaging in critical interaction with your peers.

I hope that helps ?"

And I hope this helps some of you! All the best with everyone’s assessments!