Fact: I now feel uncomfortable when people talk about Web 2.0 as a philosophy.
Last night, I had a free-ranging conversation with my longtime friend and occassional coworker/coproducer Danielle Martin centered around her developing thesis on “Participatory Media Catalyzed by Ouside Facilitators” at MIT.
In developing her thesis, she had been referring to Web 2.0 as a philosophy—something I have done and had many, many other people have do as well—in a conversation with Henry Jenkins. Who (and this is hearsay, I admit), said, “Don’t. Web 2.0 is a business model.” And he’s right.
Tim O’Reilly, says this: “Web 2.0 is the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the internet as platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform. Chief among those rules is this: Build applications that harness network effects to get better the more people use them.” This is business model.
Instead, Danielle pointed me to the work of Axel Bruns and his conception of Produsers and Produsage: produsers engage not in a traditional form of content production [producer -> distributor -> consumer], but are instead involved in produsage – the collaborative and continuous building and extending of existing content in pursuit of further improvement.
Bruns, in an interview with Henry Jenkins, lays out 4 principles of produsage:
- Open Participation, Communal Evaluation: the community as a whole, if sufficiently large and varied, can contribute more than a closed team of producers, however qualified;
- Fluid Heterarchy, Ad Hoc Meritocracy: produsers participate as is appropriate to their personal skills, interests, and knowledges, and their level of involvement changes as the produsage project proceeds;
- Unfinished Artefacts, Continuing Process: content artefacts in produsage projects are continually under development, and therefore always unfinished – their development follows evolutionary, iterative, palimpsestic paths;
- Common Property, Individual Rewards: contributors permit (non-commercial) community use and adaptation of their intellectual property, and are rewarded by the status capital gained through this process.
These ideas, much more so than Web 2.0, seem to encapsulate what my peers and colleagues are trying to get across when we talk about social media and networked production of knowledge.
Related posts:
- Chasing Best Practices At work we’re pushing the idea of Honest Practices over Best Practices. Honest Practices are stories and analysis that include...
- Transactions vs. Relationships From John Burne (former editor-in-chief at Businessweek): Many incumbents resent that most efforts to find information on the Web no...
- Like Wikipedia, but before This is how the emerging internet is described in The Axemaker’s Gift, published in 1995. Interesting sections to me highlighted...
Thanks again for your input…glad you got something out of it. That presentation was really wordy. How’s this new abstract sound:
As I study the now global field of youth and community development, I see a critical opportunity arising out of the interaction of new media creation tools and a new breed of facilitators who understand their unique organizing capacity. My current hypothesis is: when outside facilitation methods are more open and iterative, youth development programs will be more responsive and demonstrate deeper learning of participatory media skills, across cultural contexts.
The two cases explored in this paper are: my summer internship experience with the alternative education programs of Drishya (in partnership with Srishti School of Art, Design and Technology, Bangalore, India) and a class-based youth organizing and media project with YouthBuild Lawrence (Massachusetts). My analysis is a narrative of how I, as a facilitator from outside a community, applied similar process-oriented methods when planning and implementing programs in these two contexts. My attempted facilitation methods were: (1) choosing from both low and high-tech tools, (2) designing curriculum iteratively and (3) decentralizing instruction.
Upon reflection, this study found that each program was constrained by surprisingly similar mediating contextual factors, but still produced the outcomes of some participatory development processes. Based on these rays of hope, I conclude that these programs could continue to advance if local facilitation is further tempered by the values of “produsage,” because these values are inherent in the tools of new media.