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.