Have you got the itch?

It has become very clear that produsage does not emerge out of thin air—it develops not ‘from scratch’ but indeed from ‘scratching that itch’ felt by an individual participant or group of participants who begin to develop a first, basic, and incomplete solution to their problem (Bruns, 2008). You know the feeling when someone says ‘head lice’ and instantly you have the urge to scratch your head?

The technological advancements of the world today have evidently highly evolved to those a short decade ago. The emergence of the internet has changed the way in which society operates. In this society, contributors on websites or forums are unknown, we do not know whether they are an expert in the subject or issue. We just trust that everyone is. This divide between being an amateur and an expert has tested the produsage model, meaning anyone and everyone can embrace others with their knowledge, but is this information correct?

Any move beyond the professional enclosure of information and knowledge practices is also likely to have profound impact beyond the narrow field of economic practices itself; the rise of produsage also heralds the potential for a new participatory culture, for new structures of social interaction. Participation in produsage environments can help build the capacities for active forms of culture. Wikipedia encourages us to question our representations of knowledge and to engage with alternatives points of view (Bruns, 2008, 398). This means that whoever is engaging in open source knows that their view or information is now shared to the world.

An issue around this topic is copyright and patent law meaning information is collective, not owned. Say for instance you were a fashion intern. You worked with knowledgeable fashion designers, pattern makers and fashion contributors. One day they ask for your opinion about their up-coming collection. You voice your opinion about one of their dresses, telling them they should change certain things, colour, shape etc. When it is shown to the public it has become an icon (such as the Chanel suit). You contributed to that one outfit but you do not get credit or even recognised for it. Welcome to the world of produsage. You might get a thank you but you certainly can not put on your resume “I helped Zac Posen with his icon dress”. Sharing information and helping does not mean you can own it.

So there you have it. If you want to participate in the online world, just remember you will never ever get credit for it. The future is unknown—just wait till Web 3.0 erupts.

Who will you be cheering for?

 Why is there such a divide between being an expert and being an amateur? Who will win the boxing match? In the red corner with a proud track record with degrees in journalism, health and economics are the experts and in the blue corner appearing in their first web posts with a degree in citizen journalism are the amateurs. Are they both of equal weight, height and strength? 

Experts at Wharton state that “this tug of war over the future of media may be brewing between so-called user-generated content–including amateurs who produce blogs, video and audio for public consumption–and professional journalists, movie makers and record labels, along with the deep-pocketed companies that back them.” Gerry McGovern explains that the Web is a network and strength in a network is about connectedness and openness. Two hundred years ago, an expert could claim to be an authority on a particular subject. Today an expert is someone who is expert in the network; connecting, sharing, sifting, ordering, and always taking the pulse of the wisdom of the experts and the crowd.

Axel Bruns explains in his chapter that in order to move from an amateur to an expert in a particular field it takes a form of being a valued contributor engaging in the contribution which will add to the communities value within sites such as Wikipedia. The vertical sliding continuum is just like the boxing ring. If you keep practicing and keep participating in the field then the gap between being an amateur boxer and an professional fighter will pay off in the end.

 I guess in certain circumstances you would not want an amateur doctor telling you that you have swine flu but on the internet how do you know exactly who has a profession or not. It is not as if professionals post and at the beginning of a post state “just letting you know I am a REAL doctor”. Bruns (2008, 200) states that environments such as Wikipedia allow users to have an equal opportunity to have their thoughts thrown out there whether they are a professional or not. In these types of environments users do not make it known whether they have a degree, so who can you trust?

I am no expert, nor have I completed my degree, but I have enough knowledge about new media that I could claim to be an expert (with the help of Axel Bruns of course) and could participate in the world wide web, posting information, educating others about new media topics. It is weird to understand that all my efforts in the unit could help someone else learn. Then if I am wrong, some other expert could always edit my information and claim to be a better expert.

In this fight between being an amateur verse an expert who knows who will win in the end. All I know is that if you become involved in something and keep participating to become more educated about a topic then I would classify you as an expert only in that field. Good luck and strive to be a better expert in what ever your passion is.

The face of the world wide web…Wikipedia

Wikipedia … an academic source or a website to steal knowledge? Will Richardson explains that this emerged knowledge space is “the poster child for the collaborative construction of knowledge and truth that the new, interactive Web facilitates”—the collaboratively created and edited online encyclopedia. So have you hung up your Wikipedia poster yet? I know I have!

I believe the phenomenon of this website came about because people were too lazy to read a book.

Wikipedia is by no means the first encyclopedia to take to cyberspace but has become the most successful online encyclopedia both in terms of its userbase and the breadth of its coverage—it is the ring leader for the produsage world. What has made it such a success was that it clearly embraces produsage principles implementation citizens to edit and participant in the website, without even signing a registration account (Bruns, 2008).

Produsers are creating an artistic environment where they are collaborating collective intelligence generated through the website. The website is not just any other site, but a production of knowledge through an emerged class of users in control of the function of the website. These people known as Wikipedians, all have jobs such as readers, editors, administrators, patrollers, policy makers, subject area experts, content maintainers, software developers, system operators and many more (Bruns, 2008, 116). This wide range of people within the website are just produsers creating a space where they are allowed to write, edit, argue and appraise, educating anyone and everyone.

Wikipedia’s produsage processes does not allow for the emergence of individual personality in the texts presented through the site. What Wikipedia offers instead is the voice of a collective; not of the collective entirety of its millions of users, but of the hive mind composed o the many individuals, fluid, and constantly evolving communities gathers around any one of it entries (Bruns, 2008, 133).

It is often critiqued for not being educational because active contributors to Wikipedia and casual user’s highlights the question of whether the information is providing quality and accuracy resources to the audience. This then raises the question that the users contributing, known as a citizen journalist, have a wide range of information, knowledge literacy and capacity to educate others.

I say if you know what your are talking about girl/boy friend let your knowledge grace others. In some of my subjects I will get told “Wikipedia is not a credible source” and I have never has the guts to say “oh yeah it actually is!” Citizen journalists would not be providing incorrect information for the fun of it. People participate in the online encyclopedia because being a produser lets you engage in a subject you are passionate about.

An understanding of Wikipedia requires an understanding that the knowledge you are receiving could not be all that correct, but the content produsage has influenced open participation and communal evaluation of contributors on the range and quality of a collaborate subject.

If you would like to receive a poster of Wiki please leave a comment and it will be delivered shortly!

Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No it’s citizen journalism

If you comment on my blog or on anyone’s else, you have just graduated from the school of citizen journalism. Congratulations! Your certificate will be in your email inbox shortly.

The idea behind citizen journalism is that people without professional journalism training can use the tools of modern technology and the global distribution of the internet to create, augment or fact-check media on their own or in collaboration with others. Commenting on blogs or websites has enabled you to become one of them, a journalist in your own right as a citizen. According to Jay Rosen (2006), citizen journalists are “the people formerly known as the audience,” who were on the receiving end of a media system that ran one way, in a broadcasting pattern, with high entry fees and a few firms competing to speak very loudly while the rest of the population listened in isolation from one another— and who today are not in a situation like that at all. … The people formerly known as the audience are simply the public made realer, less fictional, more able, less predictable.

Why pay when you can get if free? All because of Web 2.0 technology that this monster has evolved. Dan Gillmor (2006), founder of the Centre for Citizen Media, argues in Axel Bruns (2008) that journalism has become more of a conversation or seminar because of Web 2.0, “The lines will blur between producers and consumers, changing the role of both ways we’re only beginning to grasp now. The communication network itself will become a medium for everyone’s voice.”

Axel Bruns (2008, 74) states that communities themselves act communally and continuously, as filters of information on citizen journalism sites. They do not care to publish a story, but instead through the granular collaborative process of highlighting and subsequently building up those stories and threads of discussion which are seen to be the most interest to the community.

The difference between a real journalist and a citizen is that there is a diversity of opinion. Journalists have to follow strict instructions from their editors to write and produce in a certain way. Through being a citizen journalist the world is your oyster. You can say what you want to say on your personal blog and other citizens get to respond about the particular issue and is shown on the blog rather than been hidden by the editors.

Professional journalists are having a whinge because people like myself do not have a journalism degree, but are classified as a citizen journalist. James Farmer, a professional journalist states in his article, Citizen journalism sucks that “As a bit of a reality check, when was the last time you encountered a “citizen doctor”, valued a report by a “citizen researcher”, took off in a plane flown by a “citizen pilot” or saw justice meted out by “citizen policeman”? The funny thing with this article is that people have commented on this article, producing more citizen journalist into the world.

Produsage Junkies

Demolishing the boundaries between producers and consumers has enabled users to become producers creating the term produsers. This collaboration is building and extending further improvement for content, creating a networked participatory environment. Axel Bruns (2008) explains that frequently in a hybrid role of produser where usage is necessarily also productive, produsers engage not in a traditional form of content production, but are instead involved in produsage.

 

So who owns and controls the vast communal information and knowledge resources which have already been created by produser communities, and are further extended in a continuous process? How do such content repositories relate to the realm of copyrighted content, and how reliant are they on appropriating incorporating, remising and mashing up materials which they have no permission to us (Bruns, 2008, 5). The concept of produsage is intended as a means of connecting such development in the cultural, social, commercial, intellectual, economic, and societal realms.

 

The concept of Web 2.0 was introduced by Tim O’Reilly. Web 2.0 is a second generation of web development, a new form of communication and information sharing. This two flow of information is a move from personal websites to blogs and blogsites aggregation from publishing to participation. The commonplace assumptions associated with traditional concepts of producers, products, and production, develop a systematic understanding of the process, principles, and participants of produsage (Bruns, 2008, 5).

 

Take for example Wikipedia, a collaboration produced encyclopedia. This site allows anyone to provide information and knowledge about a particular subject. A person does not have to be a professional in the field—rather they contribute their creative work, affecting the networked produsage. Produsage can also relate to what Jenkins (2008) describes as a participatory, convergence culture being: “this is what happens when consumers take media into their own hands. … Within convergence culture everyone’s a participant-although participants may have different degrees of status and influence.”

 

In addition with the virus that is Web 2.0, produsage is a major driver for popular cultural and technology change. In this day and age everyone knows what a blog is, how to upload videos on YouTube and how to create a Wikipedia. It is not brain surgery, it is part of an internet junkie routine of the day.   Therefore we are producing tiny amounts of creative information to the concept of produsage. ‘You’ and ‘me’ participate in collaboration content creation environments.

 

Congratulations you have just been voted “Person of the Year” for your collaboration in the produsage environment. Put it on your resume because you deserve it. All your efforts participating on produsage has earned you this prestigious award.

 

Trendwatching suggests that an entire new generation has emerged. Welcome ‘Generation C.’ To be allowed in this exclusive generation a few rules should have been followed (Bruns, 2008, 4):

• must have attitude and aptitude, that is, by the interest and ability to participate in the online communities of produsage.
• must have even the tiniest amount of creative talent

 

Anyone and everyone can be a produsage junkie, if we are participating or not we have all contributed to the convergence of produsage. This is just the start of the virus.