Based on all of the readings this week, it is safe to say that a new media ecosystem has emerged from the rise of the Internet. We have blogs, wikis, open-source software, and so much more that has created a dynamic shift in production and consumption. As we have already discussed, corporations are not the sole producers anymore; users can now be producers, too (“produsers“). What we currently see is what Shirky describes as “a mix of formal organizations, informal collectives, and individuals” within this new communications ecosystem.
Blogs are the oldest form of new new media,” according to the Levinson book. They are basically the face of this new media ecosystem. Large corporations with the means to publish used to be the only disseminators of print as a mass medium. Today, any literate person or persons can go online and create an individual or group blog. And there are blogs about everything (an inherit principle of blogs)! Check out the Technorati Blog Directory, which lists over 1.3 million blogs.
Then there are wikis and open-source software, which are very similar. The most famous wiki is Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia created through collaboration (production by a community, not an individual). Like wikis, open-source software is created through commons-based peer production (commons meaning no specific owner and peer production referring to decentralization, self-selection of individuals, and a lack of hierarchy). Pretty much anyone can participate in creating or modifying a Wikipedia article or open-source software. For example, I can go on Wikipedia right now and edit an article. Editing would range from low to high, where low would be correcting a typo and high would be developing a stub article or creating an entirely new article. If I really worked hard at adding and modifying articles, I might even eventually become an administrator with privileges beyond the casual user. But I wouldn’t be the only person making changes to articles in this respect. Others could come behind me and make edits as well. Together, our overall edits would hopefully create a neutral article, one that no longer needs additional edits. The same sort of process happens with open-source software. Open-source software is free, meaning that any one can modify it for use. Given that I had some programming knowledge, I could change the code within the software without having to get permission from the owner. But because I do not have that type of knowledge, I could participate in the modification by sending feedback to a creator of the software to let them know if there were any bugs.
So from all of this, it is easy to see how this new media/communications ecosystem is at work. It is more collaborative and participatory because tools have been democratized. This will be a force that continues to change and shape our culture and society.
Actually it is astonishing that these various peer productions work out so well.
You could wonder why so many people participate in working on a wiki or programming open-source software at all – basically they spend a lot of time doing something that other people, like an editor of Britannica, would be paid for.
But they do it for free and they even do it in their free time. Since most Wikipedia editors tend to remain anonymous they don’t even gain some kind of tribute.
I find it hard to imagine that so many people apparently work for nothing but the common good. Anyway it is great that they do.
I agree. I don’t exactly remember what reading it was from, but it was said that people will find/make the time to do things they love. That statement is very true.
One thing that contributes to the success of peer productions is numbers – so the more people who are actively contributing, the more likely it is that a product will succeed. Certainly many open-source software ideas fail, because if there are not enough people involved the bugs don’t get fixed, people lose interest, etc. So the ability to harness huge amounts of people, via the internet, it what helps these endeavors. But definitely success is largely a numbers game.
I became aware of open-source software a few years ago while eye was looking 4 an alternative to Photoshop—->that’s when i came across GIMP(image manipulation program). Photoshop was like mad expensive—>GIMP was free and it had Photoshop capabilities. So I went with GIMP. Although I only used GIMP for photo editing—>it was nice 2 know that i had the right to change and improve it’s design through the availabilty of its source code.