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'.