I was intrigued to see that open source was one of the topics for this week’s discussion because aside from the basic concept of what it means, I was rather unfamiliar with it. Vaidhyanathan quotes Benkler, who views open source as “peer production”, which, in my opinion, gets at the very heart of what open source is all about. The opportunities for collaboration offered by open source is at the heart of what distinguishes Web 2.0 from 1.0 and, as mentioned in the readings, Linux and Wikipedia are excellent examples of how just how embedded in our society open source has become. I also thought that Vaidhyanathan brought up a good point that the copyright holder must have enough faith in the copyright system to justify his or her investment in it. Without such faith, the system cannot thrive, which is why some programmers and entrepreneurs contribute to open source. Given the popularity of the aforementioned examples, the open source concept is more powerful than one might think.
Interestingly, Hyde et al. discussed the difference between sharing of content and collaboration, two terms that can be easily confused, especially in the context of social media. As mentioned by Hyde et al., social media platforms can become collaborative when they add an additional layer of coordination such as a hashtag on Twitter. However, such platforms are not inherently collaborative, which implies a many-to-many reach. Often, users simply share content, which can be viewed as more of a one-to-many approach. In this way, it can be argued that while many social network users may feel that they are collaborating when they use social media, they are simply sharing content.
As a marketing doctoral student, I found the case studies discussed by Mandiberg to be quite interesting. Mandiberg’s main point is that participation breeds creative mutation, which leads to better ideas through collaboration. From a business perspective, it is a natural inclination to think that this mentality is a good one to have if you want your idea to be “stolen” from you. However, Mandiberg argues that as a result of others’ contributions, the original idea can be transformed into something greater than what it started as. It is interesting to note, however, that this tends to work best for a product that has some sort of digital component to it because a strictly physical product does not require collaboration, but simply, a means of production.
I have often wondered about some of Dawson’s points in her argument for a DIY Academy. However, she begins the chapter by saying that “…scholars illogically hand over their hard-won knowledge virtually for free to presses…” While this is true, I believe that part of the beauty of scholarly research lies in its tenets of peer revision and journal selectivity. After all, by electing journal editors who have vast experience in a given field and by allowing all authors to review one another’s work, this system helps to maintain the prestige that academia is known for, while still allowing for the acceptance of a variety of viewpoints through the security of the tenure system. I agree that in light of developments in digital technology, the current publishing system should be revised, but I’m not sure that a completely open-access arrangement is the best move for scholarship either.
I guess that collaboration, participation, and peer-production are interchangeably used without clear distinctions. I often make the blurring determination.
Yes, I have done the same thing, so I found Hyde et al.’s distinction among these terms to be useful. After all, it is difficult to make major strides in publication unless important concepts and constructs have been properly defined.
Alexa, do you think that established academic journals will continue to be the status quo? While I agree that they give credibility, I have doubts that universities, particularly state schools, will be able/willing to pay the subscriptions for too many more years.
Meagan, I think they will continue to be the status quo in the foreseeable future. From what I can tell from my career as an scholar-in-training so far, journal publications in reputable journals truly are the lifeblood of academia, and scholars tend to view their publications in such journals as their “academic currency”. I’m not saying that it will always be this way, but I think that something radical will have to occur in order to change it…and I’m not sure that a completely open-access system is the answer.
I’m glad you brought up the question of “faith” in its relation to copyrights because for the system to work, there has to be an almost religious agreement among contributors. The drifting thinkers must commit to the faith-based community mindset.
The one thing I feel is a little lacking in Dawson is that she doesn’t spend enough time talking about how peer-review can be (and is now in many examples) part of the open-access movement, so that quality is not excluded. In fact, one of the top 3 ranked journals in Communication is the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, which is completely open access. It is also very competitive to get into. But it started in the mid-90s, and it has only been within maybe the last 6-8 years that it has really gained more visibility in the field, and I think was only included in the ISI rankings maybe 3 years ago, or so. But the quality of the scholarship has always been high.
Dr. Markman, I would have liked Dawson to spend more time talking about that too. I didn’t know that the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication is completely open access. I’d be interested in learning more about how their review process works.
By looking at Dr. Markman’s example, I guess peer-review is possible in an open-access movement. It may just take time, and it probably wouldn’t hurt having a few big names publish in some of these up and coming journals. However, I don’t see that there would be much incentive for them to.
What a brilliant piece of writing, thank you for sharing it. With the New SPLK-2003 test experience, I advanced in my career and earned a salary increase. Now, it’s free for everyone. Wishing you quick promotions!
Your article truly stood out to me, thank you for sharing it. With the help of the PSK-I valid test collection file, I achieved a promotion and pay raise. Now it’s free for everyone. Wishing you all success!
I’ve learned many valuable experiences from this article. Improve your IT expertise with free 101-500 pdf demo download access. Best of luck in your exams!
The content of the article is thought-provoking, and I’ve learned a lot from it. Here comes the Pass4sure GWEB study materials exam! Wish me luck and success!
I love the content, so it’s an instant like for me. Here’s the free 1z1-819 latest test papers material! Best of luck to all!
I am so grateful for this inspiring article, thank you! The New free study D-SNC-DY-00 questions helped me achieve career growth with a promotion and pay raise. Now, it’s available for free. Best of luck to everyone!
I truly appreciate your article, it really left a deep impression on me. The C_C4H62_2408 new practice questions exam questions are free—essential for career advancement and salary increase!