Filed under: Uncategorized
As traditional business models evolve, a new market is emerging. This is the case for digital products as well as for items which are usually sold in the real world. Instead of lines of production following a linear manufacturer-to-buyer model we now see more circular models such as buyer-to-manufacturer-to-buyer or buyer-to-buyer. A popular example of this of which has seen a large take up in the past decade is Ebay, where users can buy from and sell to other users, without the hassle of a traditional intermediary. These online shop fronts usually have a blueprint, or informational layer, displaying a description, photo, or instructional manual for the products available, provided by the seller.
A more recent uptake in the digital world is the emergence of buy, make, sell websites such as Ponoko. This type of business is more personalised as buyers first get to design or tweak the product to suit their needs and then have the manufacturer produce the product with their specifications before delivery. Dell computers is another example of this. The benefit of these business’ planing process is the elimination of risk. As the product is only made when an order has been registered these businesses are making exactly to demand. Differing from the model behind Ebay, the informational layer of these websites is usually provided by the customer. This may be software which allows the customer to design their product, or simply the ability to describe their specifications.
These new models for buying and selling online are also changing the motivations of companies. As “real world” companies are focusing more attention on social responsibility over profits, digital world companies are focusing more on social networking rather than competition. These company’s online fronts now take more of a community form then a shop, with some companies offering discussion pages and instructional videos or tips on top of the products and services they intend to sell.
DIY Design and Production, or Produsage Production, also refers to the sites set up by communities of interest or for these communities to discuss products they’ve used, changes they’ve made or tips they have for others with a similar interest area. Companies such as Burda have taken this new social networking craze and have used it to the advantage of their product and the business’ growth. Burdastyle is Burda’s online community for customers to communicate with each other discussing changes they made to the product, ideas they have in relation to Burda’s patterns and general communication between customers who share this interest area.
The advantages of these new business styles are considerably focused on the consumer. As companies are opening themselves up for critique, offering instructional support, and adjusting to the feedback from consumers, it is now easier than ever for consumers to find the product they need.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: amateur content, folks and experts, professional content, professional vs amateur, Wikipedia
There is one returning concept that seems to appear in each topic I cover. This being the idea of professional material vs. amateur material of which are both absorbed for public use thanks to the accessibility of the internet. When discussing Produsage I covered how the lines separating who creates the material are being blurred to give more credit to amateur information producers. In my blog on Citizen Journalism I focussed more directly on news content and how new technologies (such as mobile devices) have caused an evolution in the journalism industry. This evolution included the positive aspects such as a larger spread of sources, but also saw to a decline in the need for professional writing, and in turn the work of journalists. Wikipedia was a specific example of amateur content in production and use all over the world.
Professionals (or experts) are considered those who have an education in the area, or have experience in the industry being discussed. Industrial Journalists are professional content creators. They usually have a degree in journalism, work for a news medium and contribute to news coverage as their profession. In theory, through their education these journalists have learnt to steer away from using biases or using their own personal opinions in a news story. This is only in theory however, as some news sources tend to follow a particular stance and therefore a subtle bias is implied.
Amateurs (or folks) on the other hand usually have no educational background in journalism, yet they have an interest in a particular area or have an opinion about that topic and are using the internet, especially its blogging capabilities and commenting functions, to contribute to the published information. Content created by amateurs tends to be more personalised and can have very prominent biases, as they do not have to answer to anyone’s complaints. Content is usually created as a hobby, or as an expression or extreme support or objection towards a topic and therefore again has a great possibility of bias.
In today’s world with the evolution in the industry resulting in amateurs creating their own content as often as professionals, a clear divide between folks and experts has emerged. Although the lines between producers and users are blurring, the people involved are competing against each other. A bridge has been made between the two in the sense that now each can have their opinion heard equally, however the differences in content and style of their information is still clear. Now that the general public have the opportunity to speak, the opinions of the professionals can be questioned as can the credibility of these amateurs. Some public sources (such as Wikipedia) hope to control some of instability by allowing only those who can ensure that their contributions are made with a “reasonable indication that [it] will be constructive and useful to the common aim,” (see Bruns) to submit. However, it is impossible to monitor every contribution made by professionals and amateurs alike and therefore we are bound to a never-ending battle between the contributions of the experts and the folks.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: collaborative media, collective intelligence, Data Information Knowledge Wisdom, DIKW, produsage, wiki, Wikipedia
To really understand how far we, the users of the internet, have come in evolving how we access information, Wikipedia needs to be addressed. From my earliest memories of high school assignments, where one paper would cover the broad topics of Australian History or Shakespeare, to the relatively more precise and complicated topics assessed at university level now, Wikipedia has always been a useful source or, at least a helpful starting point for finding information. As Google is seen as the gateway to the most interactive medium in the world, Wikipedia is the gateway to the largest encyclopedic medium known to man. Just ask it.
The growth and success of Wikipedia can be credited to the fact that it is, in most senses, a form of Produsage (refer to past blog). This of course meaning that those who access the site can contribute their own knowledge to it as well as earn further knowledge from the information they take from it. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. The catch being that any changes made to the site are monitored by all other users so that changes which are updating or adding to the information are kept, and those which are added as graffiti onto any of Wikipedia’s pages are soon removed.
This previously unheard of gathering of information into one public source has both positive and negative implications. Positively, the restrictions to what is allowed to stay published on the site gives Wikipedia a differential advantage over many websites. Other less monitored sites in the same genre have more trouble gaining public use because of the spam that can be produced onto it. A negative implication of the site however is the anonymity of contributers. Without the knowledge of who contributed to the information, it is hard to use Wikipedia as a credible resource. For example, it is rarely acceptable for Wikipedia to be referenced in university level assessments because it is not scholarly or peer reviewed. I learnt that the hard way. As a starting point for this level of education however, Wikipedia is a popular choice.
Although the concept of allowing anyone anywhere at anytime to edit this website seems chaotic, it has proven to be a much greater success than its preceder “Nupedia” which was only accessible for editing by “those who possess PhD’s.” The failure of this website, and the ever-growing popularity of Wikipedia is further discussed by Andrew Lih.
During its time as an openly accessible website, Wikipedia has evolved in itself to not only include encyclopedic information, but also to have news functions, general knowledge portals and fact sheets and on top of this an image gallery. At the time of this blog publication, Wikipedia stood at 2 870 139 English articles.
The theory of DIKW (Data, Information, Knowledge, Wisdom) can be applied to those who use Wikipedia. Data has been previously collected, sorted and understood, and from here published as one person’s wisdom in an area for others to learn from and start the process again. Even more relevant is therefore the concept of Collective Intelligence. As I have mentioned in earlier blogs the ability to share one’s information to others and have access to their information in return creates stronger intelligence on both sides. This theory is multiplied exponentially with Wikipedia because of the great range of collected material that it offers.
Filed under: New Media | Tags: produsage, citizen journalism, do-it-yourself journalism, mobile journalism
With the emergence of “produsage” or user-generated content, a new medium has become available for non-professionals to share information in a journalistic sense. This new supply of information is considered “Citizen Journalism” which involves the general public having the ability to cover news, current affairs and world events with their own opinions and biases and publish this for the masses. The two main areas that I believe should be considered in order to understand citizen (or do-it-yourself) journalism is how this content is being generated and how this is affecting the supply and absorbance of newsworthy information.
I believe that the internet is responsible for the massive rise in citizen journalists and the content that is now available in this area. The World Wide Web is the biggest forum for this type of journalism. Sites such as Indymedia, Ohmynews and Flickr are all examples of citizen journalism websites. The reasons behind the creation of these websites are the need by a specific community to express their concerns, publish the information they have gathered, or find other user’s knowledge and information and add this to their own for a certain topic or event. Indymedia was set up in this sense. It was established 10 years ago to provide, “grassroots coverage of the World Trade Organization protests in Seattle.” More information about Indymedia’s origins can be accessed through their About page. Another reason why do-it-yourself journalism is becoming popular is the rise of new technologies. The internet, of course, is the biggest new media product that has aided this rise however, new mobile and video technologies have also contributed. Sites such as Flickr rely on these new technologies to run successfully.
The mobile phone has become a well-known journalism tool, especially for non-professionals because of the use of it during incidents such as the 2001 World Trade Center attacks and the Boxing Day Tsunami in 2004. In these cases, the newer functions of a mobile phone including MMS services helped people on-scene to instantly publish visual information about the events to their friends and family, who could then post these images or videos onto the web for large scale consumption. More research on post September 11 citizen journalism has been conducted by Jonathan Dube who worked with the Pew Research Centre to connect the affects of mobile trends to do-it-yourself journalism.
Many advantages and disadvantages have been argued for and against the supply of citizen journalism. Some positive aspects of citizen journalism include the instantaneous coverage of issues (September 11) and the wider range of views that are available – any biases are also clear and with this a reader can decide for themselves whether an opinion is fair or not. As Dr Axel Bruns of QUT explains in a 2009 lecture, citizen journalism also acts as a “watchdog for the watchdogs.” In other words, it surveys what is published by professional journalists in the more traditional fashion and responds to it by filling gaps, commenting and correcting. Disadvantages of citizen journalism include the negative affect on jobs for industrial journalists and also the lack of professionalism that comes with blogging or posting journalistic information without the same credentials as those in the industry.
Filed under: New Media | Tags: collective intelligence, produsage, user-generated content
In recent times the lines that used to divide producers of content with their users have been blurred. Thanks to online revolutionary programs and new concepts such as social networking there is need for a new theory determining who is generating information and for whom. This is because instead of having titles and clear rankings giving professionals the ability to distribute information, the internet has opened access to a source for releasing content by anyone in the general public. Therefore not only are more people producing information, but these same people are receiving access to knowledge and content published by peers and other members of the general public. The name now associated with these creators is “produsers”. This name, created by Dr Axel Bruns of Queensland University of Technology, simply combines the old titles of producer and user to signify that both roles are being played at once. As each person contributing information to public access sources is also using other people’s work to enhance, support or oppose their work, they are acting in both the producer and user roles.
The emergence of user-generated content, or that information created by produsers has been studied in recent times because of the obvious influx in popularity. One academic, whom I believe shares my views on produsage has accredited this emergence and popularity, as a result of the emergence of new media technologies, of the changes in values of media organisations (from producing media content to creating facilities and frameworks for ordinary, non-professionals to produce their own content), and because of recent world issues of identity and self expression. (For more information on user-generated content view work by Prof Jensen of Aalborg University)
Given to the wide spread of public uptake on “produsage” it is clear that the general public are just as willing and able to contribute to the collective intelligence of the community as any person in a professional role has been in the past. In fact, I believe our online community is benefitting from produsage in a such a significant way that the negative implications of this theory can be overlooked. These negatives include the possible leaks of unjustified or false information, the difficulty, or in some cases, inability to differentiate between reliable and unreliable sources, and the decentralisation, or reduction of power usually held by corporations with access to professionals and their publishing sources. An example of where you might find these negatives is on a website such as Wikipedia, where editing information is unrestricted.
The positive implication that I, having studied this area and am now contributing to first hand, believe outweighs these negatives is the creation of collective intelligence through produsage. It is now possible to access a much greater load of information because of the exponential growth of people contributing to public knowledge. As mentioned earlier, these contributors are also basing a great deal of their findings on information also gained publically, through the knowlegde of even more others, i.e. through collective intelligence. This circle of sharing and absorbing knowledge is resulting in more view points being heard, and more evidence and information backing up specific theories, as well as those with completely new theories and view points also having a say.
One of the latest ways in which produsage has surfaced is through blogs such as this. However, any information supplied to publicly accessible sources, whether the creator has meant to or not, is contributing to a wider understanding.
