Open Source Software: Collective Intelligence

Open Source software is an important part of DIY Communities, a system of rapid evolution, it entails that new versions are often updated, software development is direct and quick responses to user needs, with user involvement. Traditional commercial production is vastly different, with the source of the information coming from few to many, with updates and changes happening very slowly.

Open source software operates on several key assumptions. These assumptions include that everyone had a contribution to make. As Jenkins (2006) states, everybody knows something. Open source software operates on the assumption that everybody has something to share and has something valuable to contribute.

Another assumption is that community involvement is more likely if community experimentation is encouraged. Experimentation brings innovation, and any experimentation is to be encouraged and allowed to proliferate.

The benefit for the user to contribute while not only satisfying their own want of expression of ideas, is also to gain social standing within the open source software community. Other reasons may also motivate the user to participate in Open Source software, whatever the reason, an underlying assumption is that users will contribute if it does not inconvenience themselves and is beneficial both for themselves and others.

Furthermore, it is critical for the ownership of the project to be shared. It will be unlikely that contributors will continue to contribute if the content that is produced ultimately benefits a commercial software publisher.

To summarise, through contributing and continual improvements within these structures, collective intelligence may be increased as a whole. Through collaboration, resources are pooled and skills may be combined to benefit society on the whole.

References:

Muir, A. 2008. Open Source Software and beyond. Virtual Cultures [Lecture].

Jenkins, H. 2006. Introduction: Worship at the Altar of Convergence. In Jenkins, H. Convergence Culture: When new and old media collide. New York: New York University.

Blurring Lines: Media Users and Media Producers

The line between consumers and producers are blurring. This can be observed not only in new media forms such as YouTube, but also through traditional media forms, such as newspapers. Traditionally, news was regarded as generated from established outlets such as the newspaper or television, produced by journalists. Today, news can be accessed from diverse sources and channels produced by citizens and basically anyone that is willing to contribute.

Harrington (2008) states that while there is no definite definition of what news is, ultimately, it is defined as that which keeps citizens informed about the democratic institutions, and other information or events that affect them. It also provides the audience with the information required to make informed choices about the direction of public life.

Audiences of today, armed with empowering technology, have changed the way in which news is consumed, as well as produced. Channels that blend entertainment and news are those that are successful and can reach to the youth audience. Audiences may be seen to engage with the news in different forms. An example of this is The Chaser, a show that mixes serious political issues for entertainment value. Harrington states that the peak for this show is 2.24 million viewers at the peak. Another example as outlined by Turner is Michael Moore’s film Fahernheit 9/11. Through presenting news and current affairs in a credible and entertaining manner, it is able to engage the audience through achieving relevance.

Media users are increasingly able to access news and information through outlets that actively engages them. Fiske states that relevance is largely a matter of content, with the manner of their telling determining their relevance. To achieve relevance, media users are not only more selective about news consumption, but they also generate news content, become producers or produsers. Citizen Journalism, a term defined by Saunders as media produced by non-professionals, are increasingly the form of which young people receive information about news and current affairs. This includes blogs, vlogs such as youtube, podcasts, and corporations using similar formats such as QUT. Through user generated content, viewers are able to have access to wide ranges of news and content, as opposed to only that which is considered important by centralised institutions.

Interactive news encourages viewers to be participants in the process, not recipients of tits products. Fiske in his 1989 article Reading the popular made the statement that he would wish to increase its openness, its contradictions, the multiplicity of its voices and points of view. With interactive news, this is achieved.

Through the merging of media users and producers, the abundance of user-led content has allowed for content to be greatly diversified. Through the equality of all willing participants to be able to access and create news that is relevant for them, media democracy is increased greatly.

References:

Fiske, J. 1989. Popular News. In Reading the Popular. Winchester, Mass: Unwin Hyman. 185-197.

Harrington, S. 2008. Future-Proofing Journalism: Youthful Tastes and the Challenge for the Academy. Journal of Media & Cultural Studies. 1-19.

Turner, G. 2005. Shifting Genres: The trade between news and entertainment. In Ending the affair: the decline of television current affairs in Australia. Sydney: UNSW Press. 70-91.

The Beauty of Online Collaborative Media

Communities have always collaborated knowledge in order to gain and improve collective intelligence. However, with new media technologies, and the support of content management systems, online communities may come together with information and contribute effectively towards collective intelligence. As Jenkins (2008) states, ‘none of us know everything; each of us knows something and if we put the pieces together, we can pool resources and combine our skills’. A medium that successfully allows this is the internet, and through content management systems such as Wikipedia, this is achieved.

Wikipedia is a user-led, collaborative form of knowledge management. ‘Wikipedia’s articles have been written collaboratively by volunteers around the world, and nearly all of its articles can be edited by anyone with access to the Internet’ (Wikipedia, 2008). This form of collaborative online community is one that exists simply to share knowledge and is the productive aspect towards collective intelligence.

This layering upon layering of information allows for ongoing discussion and subject areas that may not have previously received much information to be studied further in depth. This allows for all topics that the audience may be interested in to be explored, creating a much more democratic environment. One in which all users may participate and receive the information they desire from.

Through DIY communities such as Wikipedia, broader and more in-depth, diverse coverage is able to be achieved than traditional mediums. This is the beauty of collaborative online communities.

References:
Jenkins, H. 2006. Introduction: Worship at the Altar of Convergence. In Jenkins, H. Convergence Culture: When new and old media collide. New York: New York University.

Wikipedia. 2008. Wikimedia Foundation. www.wikipedia.com (accessed April 30, 2008).

Facebook and Friends: Can there be too much of a good thing?

In the online networked environment, individuals are able to create their own technocultures and form virtual communities. Virtual communities are described by Bruns (2008) as a way of gaining feelings of membership, feelings of influence, integration and fulfilment of needs and shared emotional connection. An example of an online community that I regard as successful is Facebook. Facebook is a successful form of online community as it achieves the purpose and the benefits of virtual communities. These are stated by Bruns (2008) to include:

- new forms of personal and community identity independent of physical attributes or geographic location
- communities of interest collecting information and developing a shared understanding of the world
- new forms of collaboration and social organisation, an opportunity for active, participatory membership/citizenship
- active user participation as content creators, lowering barriers to cultural and social participation
- ability to operate in fields of interest neglected by mainstream media, business, politics, research
- ability to build cooperative networks with other communities, move from participatory culture to collective intelligence

Amongst these many benefits, the main reason why people join the Facebook community is the convenience of keeping in touch with friends, and to expand and enhance their personal social network. However, the traditional connotation of ‘friends’ on Facebook does not apply, with different degrees of friendships all categorised within the broad term of ‘friends’. So if one of the main reasons of joining Facebook is to enlarge and enhance ones personal social network, does that mean the more friends one has, the ‘better’? After research into this phenomenon, it has been found that emerging research shows that there is a point of diminishing returns in terms of the associations related to the number of friends and interpersonal perceptions.
What does it mean to be a "friend" on Facebook?" It can mean several things. First, it often reflects that individuals have some form of acquaintance that is based in offline interactions. Social networking systems can facilitate mixed-mode relationships. Walther and Parks (2002) defined mixed mode relationships as those which move from an electronic context to a face-to-face setting or vice-versa. In the case of social networking systems we may see many relationships that hover between the virtual and physical quite frequently. Donath and Boyd (2004) argue that online social networking systems can help individuals to maintain a larger number of close ties than people can typically maintain without such technology. This may be reflected through the ability for people to ‘check up’ on others page and keep in touch through random wall postings, brief verbal exchanges through the form of photo comments, short messages as well as status updates.

‘Friends’ on Facebook may not equate to what we may define as ‘friend’ in the offline world. This is the difference; however, that inflates the potential size of friend networks. Adding people (everyone that the user knows) as friends are the primary activity on Facebook, having a large network of ‘friends’ despite weak social ties, is a source of social capital. Although most of the ‘friends’ on Facebook are either just neutral friends or acquaintances (Boogart 2006, 4), the number of friends that a user has is often the first point of reference when making social judgments about a person.

Also, it is socially inappropriate to refuse a friend request from someone who is familiar (Boyd 2007), with the other party possibly feeling offended. Thus, the size of one’s apparent friend network on a system such as Facebook can easily become much larger than traditional offline networks due to technology facilitating greater connection at some level, and because social norms inhibit refusals to friend requests.

Despite this casual relationship of friend association, judgments are still made based on the number of friends a user has. Traditionally, in the offline environment, the common assumption is that the more friends one has, the better the attributes they possess. For example, ‘Daniel has so many friends; he must be so nice, kind, friendly and sociable etc’. However, on the online environment, this has been found not to be the case, as reflected in many research case studies.
After a certain point, too many connections may result in negative judgments about the user. O’Murchu, Breslin, and Decker (2004, 6) notes that ‘over exposure on these sites can also at times equate to a popularity contest based on status of how many friends or friends of friends one has’. Donath and Boyd (2004) adds that this has been similarly noted in social networking site, Friendster, where users who had a large group of superficial, acquaintance level friends became known as ‘Friendster whores’. This term is used when the person that is added realises that they have been added not because they are genuinely regarded as a friend, but as part of a collection, to increase their number of friends. This suggests that there is a point where too many ‘friends’ on such online social networking sites becomes ‘too much of a good thing’.
Another negative connotation from having an extremely high friend count is that the user spends an excessive amount of time on social networking sites in order to achieve the friend count. Therefore, may appear to be superficial and shallow.

Therefore, Facebook as an online community is successful in achieving feelings of membership, influence, integration and fulfillment of needs and shared emotional connection for the user. However, excessiveness in these areas may lead to a point where these online communities achieve negative results and perceptions for the user. Thus, while successful as an online community, sometimes, Facebook can be too much of a good thing.

Media as cultural technologies: Where will it take us next?

Technology nowadays is increasingly embedded in our everyday lives, becoming an inseparable part of our culture. This is reflected in most major countries, where technology is regarded as an important cultural form. For example, technology is listed beside fashion, food, film and design as major cultural influences in contemporary India (Design Week, 2007). An alternate view of this is that technologies are not simply material forms that impact upon culture, but rather as themselves cultural forms’ (Flew 2005, 25).

Technology is stated by Flew (2005, 61) to become part of culture because it is a delivery method. It creates culture through participants acting on technology, while technology acts upon participants.

There are three levels through which technology interacts with culture, through physical objects, contexts of use and systems of knowledge, which indicates that technologies inevitably intersect with cultures. Similarly, as with culture, it may be understood on three levels of meaning, through aesthetics, a whole way of life, and as underlying structural systems of meaning.

A point raised by Flew (2005, 26) is that thinking about new media as cultural technologies draws attention to those social and cultural continuities that provide the contexts of operation of these new technologies. New media as cultural technologies implies that it has an immense impact upon our actions and beliefs. McPhail & Mcphail in Flew (2005, 32) concurs that ‘the impact of the communication media influences not only what we think but how we think’.

New technologies offer participants a greater democratic power in participation than ever before. We are able to access and upload any content whenever we desire, transforming us from the traditional passive audience to participating users. Top-down heirachys of one-to-many frameworks have shifted towards bottom-up many-to many frameworks. The focus is no longer on satisfying mass interests, but rather long tail, niche interests (Anderson 2004, ¶4). Also, while traditionally, content is driven by business interests, it is now controlled by user interests. The unified culture of media has diversified into multiple communities with extensive choices. For example, the online video uploading site YouTube allows for users to reach many other users, creating a portal which allows for access across a wide variety of content suited for niche or long tail users. In fact, the shift away from content targeted at large, passive audiences towards small, niche audiences are also seen in traditional media froms such as television. Television, in particular, paid or subscription television are increasingly segmented to cater to diverse interests.

In this age where we are all networked and connected, we are also given the freedom of choice, and access to content which we are interested in. Thus, I agree with Negroponte’s viewpoint that the overall social impact of new media technologies is positive. I believe that these properties of decentralisation, cultural standardisation, user empowerment presents new possiblities for enhancing individual liberty and global social harmony.

We are all exposed to an abundance of information, which is ever expanding as users create and add content to this information. The future cultural technologies brings is yet to be unfolded. For those that are willing to participate in this technoculture, the world, and all its secrets, are at their feet, to begin the journey.

References

Anderson, C. 2004. The Long Tail. Wired 12.10. http://www.wired.com/wired/
Archive/12.10/tail.html. (Accessed May 1, 2008).

Design Week. 2007. V&A exposes creative culture in India Now. Design Week. 22(35): 6.

Flew, T. 2005. Virtual Cultures in Flew, T. New media: an introduction. Melbourne: OUP.

Welcome

Welcome to my blog.

My name is Helen Wong, student at QUT undertaking Bachelor of Business (Advertising) and Bachelor of Creative Industries (Media and Communication).

I look forward to sharing my thoughts as well as hearing yours.

See you around in the virtual space!