_The Wealth of Networks_ was quite the meaty read, but I suppose the best way to give a summary statement would be the following from page 30..."the Internet decentralizes the capital structure of production and distribution of information, knowledge, and culture."
As Benkler hits on again and again (and again and again), we are seeing the complete restructuring of information and cultural environments. There's a lot to sift through, but I think the best place to begin is to look at the way information is becoming a public good, rather than a pure, private good. The example that struck me hardest was that of the "Clickworkers." I thought it was amazing how 85,000 untrained users could map out craters and almost perfectly replicate the skills of a trained geologist. Imagine the difference in costs: a very low budget to organize this volunteer effort compared to the money it costs to train and hire a geologist (I'm not sure how much that is, but I'm sure it's much more than what they paid to put together this experiment). I think it would be an understatement to say that "digitally networked environments makes nonmarket strategies vastly more effective."
He also uses the example of open source software. In many cases, one user is defined as the author, another user identifies the bugs, and yet another user fixes the bugs. All three of these actions are completely independent of each other, yet still yield a viable and useful software product. This type of unmanaged collaboration is similar to that of the Clickworkers, only on a much smaller scale. However, the driving force behind each of these phenomena is the same--decentralized access to information and production.
Whether it's 85,000 amateur "geologists," or the thousands of users who run and edit Wikipedia, decentralized information illustrates the "reorganizing of the public sphere." This has become a powerful tool in today's Internet culture, and has the real potential of forever changing global economies. Normal, everyday users of the Internet don't have to raise the necessary capital to become powerful players because so much information is now free and shared. The concept of Exclusive Rights is becoming more and more challenging to pull off because information is becoming more dependent on itself. I picture it as this "eternal stack" where each piece becomes crucial to the formation of the next. In the case of the Clickworkers, the crater maps they created exemplify this phenomenom. Who can take credit for the production of that information? It was an 85,000 member team effort, and it cost beans to put it together.
There are endless examples of this in the online world today, and this network that Benkler describes is only becoming more complex. He uses terms such as "unmanaged collaboration" and "resources governed by commons," but I still think that "decentralized" is the best fit term. Certainly there are centers of information exchange, but when access to these centers opens futher and further, the clear lines our market and nonmarket behaviors once saw become blurred.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Jon, toward the end of your post you state, "but when access to these centers opens further and further, the clear lines our market and nonmarket behaviors once saw become blurred". This is an interesting way of phrasing the cultural trend that Benkler describes and it reminded me of some work that Charles Bazerman has done in the past several years. Essentially, one of the arguments that Bazerman makes is that industry is co-opting civil discourse in order to make more money (the examples he uses are complex, and I'm not sure I could do them justice without looking back at the paper). However, another related example that comes to mind is to illustrate Bazerman's point is a project Pat Mayes did where she looked at how Starbucks used environmental/friendly trade discourse to sell coffee. By consuming "coffee" that was grown in ways supposedly kind to the environment (and the growers from around the world) consumers want to buy more. They perceive themselves as acting as "responsible citizens" via their capitalist consumption (in fact, Starbucks actually has a brochure entitled, "social responsibility"). Given examples like this, I think that markets are already sensing some the "blurriness" you mention and using it to their advantage.
Wow,
I really agree with Jennifer here in that markets are using the blurriness and choosing to capitalize on it. Who can say no to be socially responsible? Again... once again, I am feeling very manipulated. But, I think I am more willing to be manipulated economically than I am in rhetoric. Or, I suppose market, et al is a form of rhetoric, but I mean pure rhetoric. Is there such a thing? Probably not.
Anyway, yes, Jennifer I agree. Big companies are choosing to take advantage of consumers and convince them that being an active consumer can actually help the environment, society, and can probably help save the world.
I certainly think "decentralization" can be a good thing, but the pessimist in me can't help but wonder, "...but what will happen when 6 million people are sitting at home drawing craters and editing wikis?" I know this is way too simple, but there is a definite domino effect. What about the economies that interact based on these employment opportunities? Newbie tech/hack geologists can certainly be replaced with virtual teacher or avitar marketing rep. This could cause a long term shift in many of our income generating "norms."
Post a Comment