How do communites 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 Emma, Nat and Ella.

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.

How is web 2.0 different from web 1.0?

For most of us currently studying at QUT we would hardly remember what Web 1.0 was about. It seemed so long ago... a whole 4 years ago! (the first Web 2.0 conference was in October of '04), when we were mere high school peasants longing for a world of freedom which would be given to us through UNIVERSITY.

When Web 1.0 was in vogue we were consumers not produsers, like the majority of Web 2.0 users are. A produser is someone who creates online content. This could be something as simple as having a Facebook account. Following on from this, Web 2.0 sees outcomes remaining always unfinished, and continually under development. In contrast to Web 2.0, Web 1.0 saw a small number of people impacting on content creation. Information was more static, passively read by the end user.

Social software has enabled us to be socially colaborative and create Do-It-Yourself communities. Examples of these are online publishing (a.k.a the blogging phenomenon), media sharing (Flickr and YouTube) and knowledge management (wiki and del.icio.us). This is how buzz words such as 'tagging' 'podcasting' and 'blogging' were coined. As mentioned earlier, a large number of people are now becoming involved in creating web content. Social software has made this transition possible. It allows better access for collaboration.

Essentially, Web 2.0 provides a more organised and categorised option from Web 1.0. It has higher content, is more functional, hence providing a democratic, personal and DIY medium.

By Emma and natalie

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.