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.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Zeitgeist
In tutorials many of us have been watching videos that epitomise different unit concepts. This week a friend introduced me to a documentary called "Zeitgeist". This was a little coincidental as the word zeitgeist cropped up briefly in one of our Bruns (2008) readings as well as in the week 6 lecture. Along with equipotentiality I have another new word to add to my vocabulary! By definition the word zeitgeist stretches back to the German Romantics period and comes from the latin zeit, which means time, and geist, which means spirit (see Wikipedia). The literal translation can be taken to mean spirit of time but in a practical sense a zeitgeist is the prevailing moral, intellectual, and cultural climate of a given era (see Dictionary.com).
So not only did this film absolutely blow my mind, but it ties in with the notion of citizen journalism. Not that Peter Joseph, the creator of the film Zeitgeist, is a journalist in the traditional sense - in fact this is his first ever documentary film - but he is an actively concerned citizen putting his bit forward in contribution to this great global community. The film has received critical acclaim from independent critics and the online community since its online release in late June 2007, so much so that a sequel is being developed and due for release in October 2008 (for a preview of the sequel see here). The information might not be anything new to conspiracy theory junkies but it comprehensively presents the audience with information that you are never going to find in the mass media. Peter Joseph's Zeitgeist provides an independent and well documented report on of the distribution of power in society and the dissemination of truth.
Zeitgeist was created entirely not-for-profit, as an inspiration to people to look at the world from a more critical perspective and to understand that things are not always as they same. Sure we might all laugh at the simplicity of don't believe everything you see/hear on television, but the reality of the matter is that many people do - even when they are adamant that everything they see/hear is taken with a grain of salt. Maybe we do this because it is easier or simpler to take what we are given as face value (I doubt I would be the first to admit that analysis and evaluation of all information I take on board in any given day requires enormous effort). Most of us also have a tendency to disbelieve things that contradict or challenge our current understanding or beliefs. Even on a good day I sometimes struggle to dig that little bit deeper and stretch my understanding, especially if the benefits of doing so are not explicitly apparent.
With that said do be careful and scrupulous when watching Zeitgeist because the information documented is subjective and the opinions presented are very definitive. However Joseph himself stated that "it is my hope that people will not take what is said in the film as the truth, but find out for themselves, for truth is not told, it is realized" (see here). So before you write it off as a load of rubbish check out the extensive lengths that Joseph went to in research for the film, and remember sometimes it's good to challenge yourself. It's alot to take in in less than 2 hours but worth sitting through!
Basically so you have some idea about what you are getting yourself into Zeitgeist is segmented into 3 parts:
To watch the actual movie please see:
On Google
OR
Zeitgeist The Movie - The Official Site
You can also read an interactive transcript of the first third of the film (with a promise that the following two thirds are being developed).
A whole new world awaits...
Reference
Bruns, A. 2008. Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life and Beyond: From Production to Produsage. New York: Peter Lang, 37-100.
So not only did this film absolutely blow my mind, but it ties in with the notion of citizen journalism. Not that Peter Joseph, the creator of the film Zeitgeist, is a journalist in the traditional sense - in fact this is his first ever documentary film - but he is an actively concerned citizen putting his bit forward in contribution to this great global community. The film has received critical acclaim from independent critics and the online community since its online release in late June 2007, so much so that a sequel is being developed and due for release in October 2008 (for a preview of the sequel see here). The information might not be anything new to conspiracy theory junkies but it comprehensively presents the audience with information that you are never going to find in the mass media. Peter Joseph's Zeitgeist provides an independent and well documented report on of the distribution of power in society and the dissemination of truth.
Zeitgeist was created entirely not-for-profit, as an inspiration to people to look at the world from a more critical perspective and to understand that things are not always as they same. Sure we might all laugh at the simplicity of don't believe everything you see/hear on television, but the reality of the matter is that many people do - even when they are adamant that everything they see/hear is taken with a grain of salt. Maybe we do this because it is easier or simpler to take what we are given as face value (I doubt I would be the first to admit that analysis and evaluation of all information I take on board in any given day requires enormous effort). Most of us also have a tendency to disbelieve things that contradict or challenge our current understanding or beliefs. Even on a good day I sometimes struggle to dig that little bit deeper and stretch my understanding, especially if the benefits of doing so are not explicitly apparent.
With that said do be careful and scrupulous when watching Zeitgeist because the information documented is subjective and the opinions presented are very definitive. However Joseph himself stated that "it is my hope that people will not take what is said in the film as the truth, but find out for themselves, for truth is not told, it is realized" (see here). So before you write it off as a load of rubbish check out the extensive lengths that Joseph went to in research for the film, and remember sometimes it's good to challenge yourself. It's alot to take in in less than 2 hours but worth sitting through!
Basically so you have some idea about what you are getting yourself into Zeitgeist is segmented into 3 parts:
- The Greatest Story Ever Told - on religion and "the Jesus myth"
- All The World's A Stage - on 911 and what "really" happened
- Don't Mind The Men Behind The Curtain - the conspiracy behind central banking
To watch the actual movie please see:
On Google
OR
Zeitgeist The Movie - The Official Site
You can also read an interactive transcript of the first third of the film (with a promise that the following two thirds are being developed).
A whole new world awaits...
Reference
Bruns, A. 2008. Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life and Beyond: From Production to Produsage. New York: Peter Lang, 37-100.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
COMMENT in response to Brendam's Blog
The following is a response to a post by fellow blogger Brendan Yates entitled Online communities, and the offline hype, that he published to his blog on Thursday, May 1, 2008:
Brendan, while I found your post online communities and the offline hype reasonably well-informed and engaging to read, you made some remarks that I was compelled to comment on.
You question the validity of virtual links and whether these relationships are actual relationships. I believe that virtual links are valid and that the relationships established in online communities are no less “real” than those occurring offline. While there may be a greater capacity for deception online [Sclove 1995; Bruns 2008], this should not detract from the significance and value of relationships built online, especially those built from mutual respect and honesty. While Flew [2005] is a very credible source, your post would have benefited from a wider reading into what elements are conducive to forming a prosperous community. I would suggest Peck’s The Different Drum [1987] and Rheingold’s The Virtual Community [2000]. You may also find my post shaking the stigma stuck to life online relevant.
I also seriously disagree with your statement that “by using the internet to expose ourselves social, we are really hiding behind the digital projection of ourselves, and can end up shutting out real-world physical relationships”. I am not contesting the inability of online relationships to embody a physical connection, or suggesting online communities should usurp offline relationships. However using the internet as a communication tool and medium for social interaction does not mutually exclude what you call “real-world” relationships (for a well reasoned discussion on this see Wellman and Gulia’s article Virtual Communities as Communities).
What is wrong with a person who finds the most enjoyment in life from playing xbox live or second life (see my post why we fear the influences of electronic games), or uploading videos onto YouTube (see my post a revelation of the “real” value in YouTube), or simply hanging out in internet chat rooms? How are these activities any different from (or lesser than) the activities we participate in offline? In online environments there is a much greater scope to explore who we are as people, and find our niche in the pursuit of acceptance and self-satisfaction [Cobcroft 2008; Bruns 2008]. While online communities might not be a “cure” for our social inadequacies they are certainly not “corrupting to people’s lives”. Perhaps read Smith and Kollock’s Communities in Cyberspace [1999], or reread Flew [2005] if you are still wondering on this matter.
REFERENCES
Bruns, A. 2008. KCB201 Virtual Cultures: Week Six Podcast. http://www.slideshare.net/Snurb/kcb201-week-6-slidecast-online-communities?src=embed (accessed April 10, 2008).
Cobcroft, R. 2008. KCB201 Virtual Cultures: Week Six Lecture. Public Lecture,
Flew, T. 2005. Virtual Cultures. In New Media: An Introduction, by T. Flew, 61-82.
Peck, M. S. 1987. The Different Drum: Community Making and Peace. 2nd ed.
Rheingold, H. 2000. The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier.
Sclove, R. 1995. Technology and Democracy.
Smith, M. A. and P. Kollock. eds. 1999. Communities in Cyberspace.
Wellman, B. and M. Gulia. 1999. Virtual Communities as Communities: Net Surfers don’t Ride Alone. In Communities in Cyberspace, ed. M. A. Smith and P. Kollock, 167-194.
Due to technical difficulties this comment was unable to be posted directly to Brendam’s Blog and the post online communities and the offline hype. As an alternative I emailed this comment to Brendan for his reference.
Monday, May 5, 2008
The power to change
After listening over the KCB201 Week 6 podcast again in preparation for blogging and our Virtual Cultures assessment, I picked up on the significance of Axel's conclusion to his speil on online communities. It goes something like this:
The true power of community is that if there are enough people that come together who agree on certain things, and agree that certain changes need to be made, then they have the power to change our environment.
I simply wanted to post something about it because something about that statement really hit home with me.
Maybe I'm just being sentimental, but the way I see it is this:
If we can crawl out of the dark pessimistic holes that so many of us are hiding in, and actually do something about the things in this world that need to change, then together we can build a brighter future!
I'm going to continue my love affair with YouTube by posting a video from crossmack who shares my enthusiam about this topic.
Unfortunately he is suffering from from the same dilemma as me - where do I go from here? If you need some inspiration, this is a good place to start.
Viva La Revolution!
The true power of community is that if there are enough people that come together who agree on certain things, and agree that certain changes need to be made, then they have the power to change our environment.
I simply wanted to post something about it because something about that statement really hit home with me.
Maybe I'm just being sentimental, but the way I see it is this:
If we can crawl out of the dark pessimistic holes that so many of us are hiding in, and actually do something about the things in this world that need to change, then together we can build a brighter future!
I'm going to continue my love affair with YouTube by posting a video from crossmack who shares my enthusiam about this topic.
Unfortunately he is suffering from from the same dilemma as me - where do I go from here? If you need some inspiration, this is a good place to start.
Viva La Revolution!
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Shaking the stigma stuck to life online
I’d like to kick this off with a somewhat dated quote from Morgan Scott Peck:
We know the rules of community; we know the healing effect of community in terms of individual lives. If we could somehow find a way across the bridge of our knowledge, would not these same rules have a healing effect upon our world? We human beings have often been referred to as social animals. But we are not yet community creatures. We are impelled to relate with each other for our survival. But we do not yet relate with the inclusivity, realism, self-awareness, vulnerability, commitment, openness, freedom, equality, and love of genuine community. It is clearly no longer enough to be simply social animals, babbling together at cocktail parties and brawling with each other in business and over boundaries. It is our task – our essential, central, crucial task – to transform ourselves from mere social creatures into community creatures. It is the only way that human evolution will be able to proceed.
[Peck 1987, 165]
With the exception of the issues arising from the global digital divide (which I will not deal with here) the internet is fundamentally neutral, impartial, and non-discriminatory [Reid 1999; Hartley 2005; Flew 2005; Bruns 2008]. In an online environment you can communicate across boundaries irrespective of nationality, culture, gender, income, and any other demographically defining feature that would otherwise restrict you in the 'real' world [Flew 2005; Bruns 2008; Cobcroft 2008]. Logically these conditions should be conducive to moving humanity forward [Schuler 1996; Kollock and Smith 1999; Rheingold 2000], reflecting what Peck [1987] describes as a genuine, or true, community. Yet spending too much time on the internet (regardless of what you might be doing online) is still commonly perceived as unproductive and unhealthy [Wellman and Gulia 1999]. It is unfortunate that investing time and attention in these online communities is exactly what makes the majority of them prosper.
Rheingold defines online communities as “social aggregations that emerge from the Internet when enough people carry on public discussions long enough, with sufficient human feeling, to form webs of personal relationships” [2000, 5]. I see this as only the first brick in a much bigger building. Like offline communities they emerge from the coming together of people who share similar interests/values/goals etc. [Flew 2005; Cobcroft 2008; Bruns 2008]. However, online communities differ in that they come from a context that transcends physical limitations and circumvents traditional social hierarchies [Cobcroft 2008; Bruns 2008]. Online communities are defined by their users, where expression is through participation and your value is defined by the contributions you make [Hartley 2005; Bruns 2008]. Over time these communities are shaped by their members; expanding, contracting, and evolving accordingly, increasing in complexity and adapting to change in ways that are not foreseeably possible by offline communities.
There are two broad identifiable arguments tarnishing the reputation of online communities. The first stems from the fear that we will see a rise in hate groups and negative communities [Flew 2005; Bruns 2008]. I understand that the internet provides a medium for the development of socially destructive communities, such as pro-ana groups, homophobic groups, racist groups – the list goes on – but like it or not, these communities existed offline long before they went live on the internet. While it is true that existence online may have accelerated the contact and communication between these negative communities [Bruns 2008], why should these bad apples ruin the reputation of all the 'healthy' online communities? The second entails the concern that the increase in online communities, and the pervasiveness of the internet in our lives, is leading to a wider social disconnect, that threatens societal stability [Bruns 2008]. While I think this argument has some merit, particularly in that no online activity can ever replace our physical senses, it seems to echo the voices of those who are resistant to change. There is always a risk with change. Fear of this risk should only hold us back when the risk outweighs the possible benefits. I think these fears are unfounded and are holding back the real potential of online communities.
I believe that there has been too much focus on how people are connected, and we have lost touch with why people are connected. If the main difference between online and offline communities is the forum in which they choose to communicate [Flew 2005; Bruns 2008; Cobcroft 2008], does it really matter what this forum is as long as the purpose of communication is being achieved? If interactive communication is pivotal to social growth and communal enrichment [Peck 1987; Reid 1999; Kollock and Smith 1999], it stands to reason that as long as we are connected, and communicating in a positive and effective manner, how we are connected is irrelevant.
We may be a long way from attaining Peck’s [1987] "genuine community" status, but on the path to this nirvana shouldn’t we nurture what is good about the communities we do have? Online communities in virtual space deserve our respect and acceptance just as much as offline communities in the 'real' world. I remain hopeful that those of us immersed in life online will (eventually) be able to shake off the negativity that shrouds virtual communities and paints them as lesser than real. Only then will they be able compliment and coexist peacefully with the offline world.
Please note:
With the exception of the issues arising from the global digital divide (which I will not deal with here) the internet is fundamentally neutral, impartial, and non-discriminatory [Reid 1999; Hartley 2005; Flew 2005; Bruns 2008]. In an online environment you can communicate across boundaries irrespective of nationality, culture, gender, income, and any other demographically defining feature that would otherwise restrict you in the 'real' world [Flew 2005; Bruns 2008; Cobcroft 2008]. Logically these conditions should be conducive to moving humanity forward [Schuler 1996; Kollock and Smith 1999; Rheingold 2000], reflecting what Peck [1987] describes as a genuine, or true, community. Yet spending too much time on the internet (regardless of what you might be doing online) is still commonly perceived as unproductive and unhealthy [Wellman and Gulia 1999]. It is unfortunate that investing time and attention in these online communities is exactly what makes the majority of them prosper.
Rheingold defines online communities as “social aggregations that emerge from the Internet when enough people carry on public discussions long enough, with sufficient human feeling, to form webs of personal relationships” [2000, 5]. I see this as only the first brick in a much bigger building. Like offline communities they emerge from the coming together of people who share similar interests/values/goals etc. [Flew 2005; Cobcroft 2008; Bruns 2008]. However, online communities differ in that they come from a context that transcends physical limitations and circumvents traditional social hierarchies [Cobcroft 2008; Bruns 2008]. Online communities are defined by their users, where expression is through participation and your value is defined by the contributions you make [Hartley 2005; Bruns 2008]. Over time these communities are shaped by their members; expanding, contracting, and evolving accordingly, increasing in complexity and adapting to change in ways that are not foreseeably possible by offline communities.
There are two broad identifiable arguments tarnishing the reputation of online communities. The first stems from the fear that we will see a rise in hate groups and negative communities [Flew 2005; Bruns 2008]. I understand that the internet provides a medium for the development of socially destructive communities, such as pro-ana groups, homophobic groups, racist groups – the list goes on – but like it or not, these communities existed offline long before they went live on the internet. While it is true that existence online may have accelerated the contact and communication between these negative communities [Bruns 2008], why should these bad apples ruin the reputation of all the 'healthy' online communities? The second entails the concern that the increase in online communities, and the pervasiveness of the internet in our lives, is leading to a wider social disconnect, that threatens societal stability [Bruns 2008]. While I think this argument has some merit, particularly in that no online activity can ever replace our physical senses, it seems to echo the voices of those who are resistant to change. There is always a risk with change. Fear of this risk should only hold us back when the risk outweighs the possible benefits. I think these fears are unfounded and are holding back the real potential of online communities.
I believe that there has been too much focus on how people are connected, and we have lost touch with why people are connected. If the main difference between online and offline communities is the forum in which they choose to communicate [Flew 2005; Bruns 2008; Cobcroft 2008], does it really matter what this forum is as long as the purpose of communication is being achieved? If interactive communication is pivotal to social growth and communal enrichment [Peck 1987; Reid 1999; Kollock and Smith 1999], it stands to reason that as long as we are connected, and communicating in a positive and effective manner, how we are connected is irrelevant.
We may be a long way from attaining Peck’s [1987] "genuine community" status, but on the path to this nirvana shouldn’t we nurture what is good about the communities we do have? Online communities in virtual space deserve our respect and acceptance just as much as offline communities in the 'real' world. I remain hopeful that those of us immersed in life online will (eventually) be able to shake off the negativity that shrouds virtual communities and paints them as lesser than real. Only then will they be able compliment and coexist peacefully with the offline world.
Please note:
Online communities are also called virtual communities. These terms are commonly used interchangeably and construe the same meaning.
See also the following posts:
Why we fear the influence of electronic games (parts one and two) – for an extended case-study on gaming, media effects, and our fear of technology.
A revelation of the “real” value in YouTube – for further understanding of the value and importance of online communities, specifically the YouTube community.
REFERENCES
Cobcroft, R. 2008. KCB201 Virtual Cultures: Week Six Lecture. Public Lecture,
Flew, T. 2005. Virtual Cultures. In New Media: An Introduction, by T. Flew, 61-82.
Hartley, J. 2005. Communication, Cultural and Media Studies: The Key Concepts. 3rd ed.
Kollock, P. and M. A. Smith. 1999. Introduction: Communities in Cyberspace. In Communities in Cyberspace, ed. M. A. Smith and P. Kollock, 3-26.
Peck, M. S. 1987. The Different Drum: Community Making and Peace. 2nd ed.
Pesce, M. 2007. The Human Network: Mob Rules. http://blog.futurestreetconsulting.com/?p=27 (accessed March 3, 2008).
Reid, E. 1999. Hierarchy and Power: Social Control in Cyberspace. In Communities in Cyberspace, ed. M. A. Smith and P. Kollock, 107-133.
Rheingold, H. 2000. The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier.
Schuler, D. 1996. New Community Networks: Wired For Change. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.
Wellman, B. and M. Gulia. 1999. Virtual Communities as Communities: Net Surfers don’t Ride Alone. In Communities in Cyberspace, ed. M. A. Smith and P. Kollock, 167-194.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
"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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
