How do communities evaluate quality?

QUALITY VS. QUANTITY

In the physical world, academic books, journals and other resources have undergone strict evaluations by scholars, publishers and librarians. Information and knowledge is voluntarily owned by the authors or companies that generate it. However, in an online environment there are no filters. Anyone can access information.

Contemporary communities, both physical and virtual, have now more access then ever before to a wealth of information and knowledge. Shared networks are created by contemporary virtual cultures using new media technologies to engage participation and collaboration. These networks revolve around relationships of trust and yet a proportion of active contributors remain anonymous.

Users and consumers are now more increasingly encouraged to engage with information and reproduce content drawing upon previous experiences. This content is of relevance to the individual or interest group and often reflects local and hyperlocal issues/interests within the community. However, with so much information to access, to what extend are local or hyperlocal users able to interpret and evaluate this information. Will they have the appropriate knowledge, tools or experience allowing them to decipher information and determine what information is credible and relevant.

Metcalfe's law (http://www-ec.njit.edu/~robertso/infosci/metcalf.html [accessed May 8, 2008]) claims that the value of a telecommunications network grows proportional to the number of its users—the more people generating content, the better that content is. However, where do we draw the line between Quality and Quantity?

“Excellent resources reside alongside the most dubious” (Kirk 1996). Individuls within virtual communities choose their level of participation as well as their level of accountability. Will the anonymous contributor be held responsible for the information they have generated? It’s these anonymous contributors that are dubious and cloud the credibility of a participatory culture. Society still needs to develop appropriate policies to overcome these issues to accurately determine quality of content.

References

Kirk, E. 2002. Evaluating Information found on the Internet. http://www. creativeclusters.com/modules/wfsection/ article. php?articleid=18&page=0. (accessed April 8 2008).

Metcalfe, R. 2008. http://www-ec.njit.edu/~robertso/infosci/metcalf.html (accessed May 8, 2008)

Virtual cultures: creating a new economy of value.

The value within popular culture is changing. Value and economic growth from manufactured tangible goods is being surpassed by that of intangible assets (such as information, knowledge and expertise). Increasingly open source software applications are combining with empowered active consumers (acting as individuals or in online communities) to create new and better information. Shalini Venturelli (in Hartley 2005, 391-398) argues that the “source of wealth and power of this developing information economy is the production, distribution and exploitation of intellectual and creative ideas.” In a networked online community, information, knowledge and expertise are pooled together and shared to create value.

Venturelli (in Hartley 2005, 396) claims that cultural and economic strength since the industrial revolution was attributed to mass produced goods (including tangible objects such as cars, textiles and appliances). Conversely the new information economy draws upon intangible assets such as services, creative ideas and intellectual property.

Hartley (2002) defines the new economy as the commercialisation and capitalisation of intangible assets or values such as knowledge, information and intellectual property. These values can be classified as new economy knowledge and service industries. Within these industries new configurations of skills, intelligence, knowledge, information and technology transform and shape the new economy.

Creativity and innovation (such as knowledge, know how, brand, reputation, customer relations and intellectual property) play a pivotal role in the shift of value from industrial markets to networking and online communities. Unlike tangible goods that decrease in value with use, Venturelli (in Hartley 2005, 394) suggests that “intangible assets in a global information society are intended to be used repeatedly by many, sometimes simultaneously.” Therefore, reflecting upon Anderson’s (2004) ‘Long Tail’ theory, the value of intangible assets can increase with each use adding to the overall strength of the information economy within contemporary culture.

“Concepts, ideas and images are the real items of value in the new economy. Wealth is no longer found within the physical product but rather human imagination and creativity” (Rifkin, 2000, p.5). As society and popular culture evolves and develops, creating new networks and more efficient ways of searching, evaluating and sharing information, then so too does the economy. For example, creative industries directories (such as Northern Rivers Screenworks and QUT’s Brisbane Media Map) are resource material archives designed to integrate intangible services. The directories are comprehensive guides to service providers, businesses and local community resources within a diverse and changing creative culture. The directories are committed to connecting people to their passions by promoting and driving the way in which people communicate with each other whether it is by accessing, sharing or creating information and ideas.

References

Hartley, J. 2002. Communication, Cultural and Media Studies: the key concepts, 3rd Edition. London: Routedge

Rifkin, J. 2000. Entering the Age of Access. In the age of access: how the shift from ownership to access in transforming modern life. 3-15. Sydney: Penguin

Anderson, C. 2004. The Long Tail. Wired 12.10. http://www.wired.com/wired /archive /12. 10/tail.html. (Accessed 18 March 2008).

How does open source work?

Open source software, traditionally known as 'free software', is a code of instructions written in precise programming language (Muir 2008). The language tells computers what to display and how to perform certain functions in certain ways. Open source code is then compiled and the language translated into files stored in the background of your computer.

Open source coding and its effective use can be broken down further to a real life situation of the differences between community produsage and commercial production.

Community produsage is a concept designed to share resources and actively contribute to the language of codes in order to build stronger open sources of software (such as firefox). Raymond (1999) argues that within community produsage, "anyone can contribute, share and reuse code... Bazaar Style." Community produsage embraces the use of free tools and labour to create a greater source of freedom and democratic power.

Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software Foundation, has developed a freedom model cosisting of four crucial principles:

0 - Run any program for any purpose
1 - Open access to study programs and adapt the language to users individual needs
2 - Share programs
3 - Add to programs

The four key principles were created to provide a single standardised and collaborative operating system of open source software. The software would be inobtrusive and allow for freedoms of choice and anominity for programmers and users.

However, proprietory sources (such as microsoft) have recognised the great potential that programming language has in the transformation of economic value within society. The shift from industrial economies to knowledge based economies and networks of information has seen programming and coding become an extremely valuable commodity. "Commercialisation has transformed code into a highly valuable commodity that must be guarded" (Muir 2008). Proprietory software now has control of its users and the ways in which they operate in everyday life.

Code as a commodity shapes the capacity and efficiency of how users perform tasks in the real world. Users of microsoft office in a work environment have to adhear to the strict windows functions or limitations which may potentially impact the output efficiency of the user and their work. In contrast to an open source of community based collaboration and co-creation which is continually updated and succeeded efficiently to produce a 'better' final product. I can definately identify with the values of community based produsage. However, I still think that the weight of our using decisions rely heavily on the decisions of big companies and their fight for the 'big bucks'.

Contemporary Consumers: Social and cultural power

Arguably audiences with a more active role in content production have more social and cultural power in relationships between producers and consumers. Interactive audiences are now further blurring the boundaries between content producers and consumers. Consumers of media in new mobile and interactive environments now increasingly create, produce and share content themselves (such as bookmarking, tagging, blogging and Wikis). The changing relationships, between producers and audiences, consist of entities such as prosumers, co-creators and do-it-yourself (DIY) cultures encouraging user-generated content (Banks 2008). In contrast, traditional hierarchical relationships consisted of entities such as corporation, producer, audience and consumer. This hierarchy seemingly took away much of the democratic power and voice of contemporary culture. Henry Jenkins uses fan based content production to demonstrate the lack of democracy within traditional relationships. He claims:

“[fans] lack direct access to the means of commercial cultural production and have only the most limited resources with which to influence entertainment industry’s decision. Fans must beg with the networks to keep their favourite show on the air, must lobby producers to proved desired plot developments or to protect the integrity of favourite characters. (1992, 27)

However, now democratic power is being restored somewhat with the use of new media technologies (such as open source software and the internet) to form niche online communities or subcultures. Jenkins (2002, 158) defines online communities as “expansive self-organising groups focused around the collective production, debate and circulation of meanings, interpretations and fantasies in response to various artefacts of contemporary popular culture.” These online communities focus on networking relationships, pooling resources and working collaboratively on a virtual online space. Audiences can now interact with each other and the media they consume without being limited by geography, demographic, identity and social order.

Contemporary culture consumers, who utilise open source software for user-led creation, now have a greater sense of achievement and belonging within online communities. According to Will Wright (an American computer game designer and co-founder of the game development company, Maxis), “when somebody makes a piece of content, they are so much more emotionally attached to it. It doesn’t even matter if it’s good or bad. If they made it, it’s really cool, and they’re totally interested in what happens to it” (Banks 2008). Therefore, online communities of co-creators and consumer content producers may feel as if they are successfully restoring the balance of democratic cultural power and that they have an influence over the media they consume.

However, the notion that audiences now have more social and cultural power over media organisations is questionable. For example shows like Big Brother, which are popular within contemporary culture, supposedly gives audiences control and cultural power to determine the outcomes within the show and yet voting results are not accurately released. Why are controversial characters that are overwhelmingly nominated and hated within ‘the house’, remaining on the show for as long as they do? Social learning and judgement suggests that society would have the same opinion as ‘housemates’. Why is the community not using its cultural power to influence the outcomes of Big Brother? Is it because cultural power is merely a perception and that media organisations realise that controversy feeds an interest in social groups and keeps audiences involved for longer?

References

Banks, J. 2008. The active audience: User-led Co-creation & the re-negotiation of media power. Queensland University of Technology, KCB301. http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/courses/1/KCB301_08se1/content/_1500890_1/KCB301%20Week%201%202008%20internet%20version.ppt?bsession=10472029&bsession_str=session_id=10472029,user_id_pk1=68541,user_id_sos_id_pk2=1,one_time_token=

Jenkins, H. 1992. Textual poachers: television fans & participatory culture. New York: Routledge.

Jenkins, H. 2002. Interactive Audiences. In The New Media Book, ed. D. Harries. 155-170. London: BFI

Producers Vs Consumers: A new relationship

The relationship between producers and consumers is changing.

The relationship between producers and consumers is undergoing significant change. The aim of traditional relationships was to form a stable base of regular consumers, committed to particular formats of tangible production. Therefore, producers tried to attract loyal consumers who would track down content across a range of other platforms (Jenkins 2006). Stable and identified consumers in turn create a demand for products. Smythe (in Toynbee 2006, 108) claims that “the audience consumption creates demand for the advertised good.” However, Banks (2002) argues that new media technologies and the users forming around them are in the process of constructing a very different ‘interactive’ consumer.

Media applications currently play a major role in driving technological innovation within society. New media technologies combined with open source software is becoming increasingly more mobile and interactive (such as laptops and access to the internet). This allows the consumers to access and control how they want to be entertained and the level of their involvement. As Henry Jenkins (2006, 167) claims:

“New Media technologies have profoundly altered the relations between media producers and consumers... The old rhetoric of opposition and co-option assumed a world where consumers had little power to shape media content and there were enormous barriers to entry [for consumers] into the market place.”

Humphreys (2006) uses video games research to support her claim that the relationship between producers and consumers is changing. According to her research, audiences are continually seeking more active roles in their consumption of new media. “Games reorganise the relationship between authors and audiences. Authors of games create environments with rules and goals rather than stories with beginnings, middles and ends. Players co-author the action rather than absorb someone else's version of a story” (Humphreys 2006). Interactive new media (such as video games) now offer the consumer an active role with the opportunity to affect outcomes and create content rather than passively watching media.

User-led content and Co-creators using open source software in online environments now make it difficult for contemporary consumers to be categorised. Subculture membership to online communities is voluntary and members have the ability to belong to more than one community or shift from one to another freely as their interests and needs change (Jenkins 2002). Users in online communities are commonly registered to multiple applications allowing them to write and create content using vehicles of self expression such as like citizen journalism or youtube. Users maintain loyalty to their networked relationships but are constantly searching for new information and new experiences.

Consumers are capable of decoding information and drawing meaning from it in ways that are relevant to them. Consumers are evolving into “human beings who do not respond to media output passively, but who are actively involved, both emotionally and intellectually” (Sternberg 2008). This involvement now gives audiences a greater sense of achievement and belonging resulting in a sense of greater social and cultural power over the media they consume.

References

Banks, J. 2002. Gamers as Co-creators: Enlisting the Virtual Audience – A Report From the Net Face. In Mobilising the Audience, ed. M. Balnaves, T. O’Regan and J. Sternberg, 188-212. St Lucia: University of Queensland Press.

Humphries, S. 2006. In search of the next level. In The Australian, December 6. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20815937-25132,00.html (accessed 22 March 2008).

Jenkins, H. 2002. Interactive Audiences. In The New Media Book, ed. D. Harries. 155-170. London: BFI

Jenkins, H. 2006. Buying into American Idol: How We Are Being Sold on Reality Television. In Convergence Culture. 59-92. New York: New York University Press.

Sternberg, J. 2008. Introduction to audiences. Queensland University of Technology, KCB301. http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/courses/1/KCB301_08se1/content/_1500890_1/KCB301%20Week%201%202008%20internet%20version.ppt?bsession=10472029&bsession_str=session_id=10472029,user_id_pk1=68541,user_id_sos_id_pk2=1,one_time_token=

Toynbee, J. 2006. The Media’s View of the Audience. In Media Production, ed. D. Hesmondhalgh, 91-132. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Evidence of intangible growth

Proof: Employment and economic growth within Creative Environments.

The employment numbers of Australia's Creative Industries are growing. Creative industries within Australia have grown by 11.1% attributing to $122, 327 from 2003 – 2005. In comparison, QLD is above the national average and shows a growth rate of 13% equating to an increase of $23, 576 in this new creative economy. Queensland is showing growth 2% higher at 12.3% than the national average of 10.42%(https://wiki.cci.edu.au/display/NMP/Businesses+in+the+Creative+Industries).

Within Australia, the Creative Industries has predominantly a small business focus with almost 45,000 or 39% being individual sole traders and almost 49,000 or 42% being private companies (https://wiki.cci.edu.au/display/NMP/1.+The+Findings). The ABC Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation found that in the year 2001, 437,000 people were employed in the creative industries. This accounted for 5.4% of the Annual Australian Workforce. In total, the value of wages and salaries within the creative Industries in 2001 equate to $20.8 billion.

Creative industries employment is harnessing the potential of a participatory culture. Knowledge, expertise and skills are being transformed into economic value within information rich environments. As creative industries employment continues to grow, this provides further evidence that there is a changing value within Australia’s economy from tangible production to intangible consumption.

A term for the new era of networking

e-Luv


e-Luv is an indescribable deep euphoric feeling of satisfaction associated with either receiving or sending forms of electronic communication. Electronic communication includes receiving or sending email, mobile phone text or picture messages, myspace messaging or myspace friend requests.

e-Luv generates an exciting and interesting sensation. It warms the heart, puts a smile on your face and creates an instant feeling of satisfaction in the pit of your stomach.

Once e-Luv has been experienced, life feels brighter and happier. The recipient instantly feels acknowledged, appreciated, wanted, needed, loved and important resulting in an immediate sense of gratification. The sender experiences sensations of allegiance, attachment and enjoyment from sharing some e-Luv. However, the power of e-Luv is so great that often the sender expects some e-Luv in return.


1. When you get a phone message, someone’s giving you some e-Luv.

Jill: ‘Hey Jack, your phone just went off. You just got a message.’
Jack: ‘Sweet… Someone sent me some e-Luv.’

2. Received new Myspace messages or friend requests? You got some e-Luv.

3. By sending and receiving emails you are sharing some e-Luv.