Several theorists have discussed the complexities around ‘community’ and what changes may be in stall thanks to technological and communications advances, Web 2.0 in particular. At the base of some of the theories is the belief that, thanks to Industrialisation and the subsequent shift from towns to cities, the ways in which communities exist and function has changed dramatically. At the same time – and somewhat as a result of this shift - the ways in which information is passed on and discussed has changed dramatically, in particular in the Media. This kind of ties into my last post in which I discussed the value of knowledge vs the value of intelligence, where I ascertained that using the term ‘knowledge’ as opposed to ‘intelligence’ was preferable as the latter could be considered exclusionary.
Knowledge includes practical information about skills, such as cooking and carpentry, growing food and sewing clothing, and can all be included under the ‘collective knowledge’ umbrella. This ‘umbrella’ is what Charles Leadbetter (2008), the father of ‘We-Think’ theory - refers to as a “common pool of resources”. He likens the activity of collaborating in order to create this common pool of resources to the days of villages and smaller, localised communities. Web 2.0 currently functions in the spirit of sharing, where information and knowledge are not necessarily thought of as commodities.
This naturally harbours questions around free labour and, of course, the common big issue: ownership (which I have talked about and will talk about more). But this brings me to my next point, or more so, Leadbetters next point, in which he claims that the Internet, specifically Web 2.0, has the potential to remind us that “sharing and mutuality can be as effective a base for productive activity as private ownership”. So not only are we seeing a shift towards a unanimous spirit of sharing information for communal rather than monetary gain, but this shift has the potential to highlight the benefits of a focus on “productive activity” rather than private ownership. This has the potential to reinvigorate that sense of community that is said to have been lost during Industrialisation and to take focus off corporate structures’ attempts at defining society.
And the vital element with reinvigorating that sense of community seems to be the Internet and its subsequent development away from those commercial and political interests which have dominated our traditional entertainment media to date. Rheingold continues in this vein: ‘[t]he technology of personal telecommunications and the rich, diverse BBS (computer Bulletin Board System) culture that is growing on every continent today were created by citizens, not doomsday weapon designers or corporate researchers”.
For those of us who are weary of the corporations, who don’t have faith in the politicians, who doubt the media, and who question the actions of the military, the Internet offers a platform for a different type of interaction where I can discuss these ideas with other people who share the same scepticisms as me.
I can now talk to you. And more importantly, you can talk back.
Posts
Are we going to see Hadoop on Tape?
12 years ago
4 comments:
interesting post melissa. one thing that has often disturbed me about this idea of an online community openly sharing knowledge is the involvement both of corporate and governmental bodies acting in secret and distorting the collective truth. The average citizen making entries into wiki doesn't have the time to compete with someone who has been paid to make changes to wikipedia. I am weary of corporations and dont have faith in politicians but I imagine they throw their weight around on wikipedia as much as they do in real life...
As well as, I might add (on the subject of throwing one's weight around,)the sort of community that is able to arise when one is able to work anonymously. Often, on wikipedia, there are self appointed flamers/aggressive re-writers who make their views about how someone else is stupid pretty well obvious. I tend to read this as an extension of the Foucauldian idea that external censorship eventually becomes internal - power, which is taken away from nerds in the "real world" can in turn be exercised by nerds online because it's they that have the regime of knowledge in the online instance, so the same basic structure is repeated there, even though the specific ideas might be different (Toby's point about time might also apply here.)
However, the ability to network far outside the immediate comfort zone of the military industrial complex cannot be denied, if only because the internet is subject to such immediate and individual innovation that even though a corporate body can act online, they can't be aware in advance of every new forum as it appears until it has gained some momentum. And, also, the internet offers us the unique chance to see some of this power craziness AS IT HAPPENS and offer our compassionate web-hugs.
I like your ongoing discussion re: knowledge vs intelligence, btw. I totally agree and wish that some of my lecturers did too :D
Good point Robyn, flamers probably spend more time than anyone. I think being physically removed and practically anonymous creates some strange creatures...
If the use of Wiki is being taught in any sense then it needs to emphasize tracking or investigation of the edits, the truth that Wiki offers is to a large extent the revealing of peoples obsessions. Something the Britannica ignores in favor of their 'expert' opinions, and the fact that LOL cats have received far more edits than the 911 conspiracy tells us something important about the nature of our obsessions ...
The transparency of Wikipedia is really what gives it any credit - the fact that you can see those vested interests in play. Lots of people have complained that that is a major flaw of Wikipedia - the fact that you get the sorts of people who 'bully' other users by having more time and energy to invest in the creation of the pages.
The anonymous thing I think I need to think about a bit more, because in one sense you would think that more people would be likely to contribute if they don't have to bother signing up to a site in order to identify themselves. But at the same time there is the chance that those bullies (be they individuals, corporations or politicians) could use the 'anonymous' feature to make changes without seeming like they have a vested interest.
Virgil Griffith's Wikiscanner (the link is in a previous post) is a great example of how people can work against these cyber-bullies and invisible power structures by revealing the truths behind their activities.
Post a Comment