Produsage: A Final Note

As discussed in previous entries, emerging new media concepts such as produsage play an important role of diversification in the new economy. Produsage however, also threatens mass media as individuals now have access to endless amounts of data for free. This raises certain questions whether the sales driven mass media can survive in this free information economy. Bruns (2008, 338) argues “it is certainly possible for conventional industry players to participate in and drive produsage projects as well-the open source cottage industry provides ample demonstration of this fact –, but only if they understand, accept, and embrace the principles of produsage itself.”

Therefore, within the new media environment, traditional hierarchical business models must now adjust to embrace the key concepts of produsage in order to compete with the new emerging models. These four concepts include:

• Open Participation, Communal Evaluation
• Fluid Heterarchy, Ad Hoc Meritocracy
• Unfinished Artefacts, Continuing Process
• Common Property, Individual Rewards

Many different areas of business from sporting to fashion are already starting to embrace these produsage concepts. Bruns (2008, 390) highlights an example of through the case of online kitesurfing communities. He notes these kitesurfers share and collaborate to improve the designs for the “aerodynamic kites they use to propel themselves through the surf,” (Bruns 2008, 390).

Another obvious example can be seen through traditional news companies who are starting to adopt produsage concepts in order to compete with the new emerging model of citizen journalism. Many newspapers now have online websites and blogs that are constantly edited and updated. Users can send in stories, photographs of events and also offer opinions through commenting. In this way, traditional news companies are slowly responding to the notion of the news as an unfinished artefact and continuing process. Bruns (2008, 389) highlights the importance of this trend as he argues that

“commercial operators will need to move beyond the product/consumer distinction, and learn to share their own innovations with the wider community; they will need to reconceptualize products as always incomplete, constantly evolving artefacts of the continuing produsage process, and come to focus not on a business model formulated around the sale of products, but around the provision of services both to the produsage community itself, helping it produse more efficiently, and to the wider community of the users of produsage artefacts, helping them to understand how to approach those artefacts and encouraging them to engage in produsage if and when they have ideas of their own to contribute to the community.”

Produsage is now no longer a new concept as commercial businesses are increasingly incorporating it into their companies. There are still many arguments made about the sustainability of produsage as a business model however traditional media companies from news, television and music now all embrace its different concepts. Ultimately, only time will tell whether amateur and produsage businesses will survive in the future. Yet, as new media technologies and concepts continue to emerge, traditional media companies will consequently have to adapt to changes in order to survive. Afterall, in the new media landscape the world is just a click away…

Reference:

Bruns, A. (2008). Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage. New York: Peter Lang.

Professionals vs. Amateurs: The Great Debate

In the new information economy individuals, regardless of their expertise, can collaborate and create content that is freely available for public access via the internet. Websites such as Wikipedia allow amateurs to create, collaborate and contribute their own knowledge on particular topics equally to professionals or experts with formal qualifications. Today however, systems such as Wikipedia are widely criticised by academics and professionals, as they deem it unreliable as a source of information.

Bruns (2008, 200) highlights “there is a struggle between two different systems of representing knowledge: one, the expert paradigm, which ultimately and ideally aims to develop well-behaved, universally accepted, and internally consistent understandings of the world, and one, the folksomic paradigm, which allows for multiplicity, conflicts of interpretation, and the existence of a number of alternative representations of extant knowledge which are accepted only by a subset of the entire community.”  The battle between what information is reliable and what isn’t is not simply a case of eliminating amateur content; after all who decides what amateur is?

One of Wikipedia’s key features is its broad coverage of topics, significantly within popular culture as well as recent and unfolding events. Many of these pages are contributed to by fans who have extremely detailed knowledge about particular topics. Perhaps one of the most obvious topics to mention here is Star Wars.  For example, does a Star Wars entry written by an academic have more credibility than one written by a fan? 

The ongoing debate between expert and amateur content ultimately reflects on what individuals regard as a healthy information culture. A top-down, hierarchical system of knowledge where information is controlled and pre-determined by leading experts or professionals, or, a bottom-up system where any individual can actively participate and contribute to information in a highly collaborative and social manner?

Today individuals are faced with a far greater selection of information to choose from than before the web 2.0 era. Instead of battling one system against the other, perhaps we should recognise the importance of diversity within information and embrace both systems. Bruns (2008, 204) argues, “instead of the development of strict and detailed rules for respecting experts, perhaps it is instead more appropriate to retain a degree of trust in the common sense of the community and its efforts at self-policing and contributor socialisation.”

While we can rely on fans or amateurs to cover certain topics on Wikipedia, blogs and YouTube, we should not limit ourselves to these systems. We also need to seek out information from additional sources that require a professional opinion and this is where the experts come in. The challenge for experts and traditional media now is to embrace new media concepts such as participation and produsage in order to maintain a sustainable business model in the new information economy.

Reference:

Bruns, A. (2008). Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage. New York: Peter Lang.

WWW.ikipedia

One of the key drivers of the Web 2.0 phenomenon is its open source coding which facilitates communication and collaboration. Using open source software, individuals can easily create, edit or contribute to content that is freely available on the internet. Online encyclopedia, Wikipedia, is a direct result of Web 2.0 concepts where any individual can edit and work collaboratively with other users to build and extend upon existing entries.

 

 Wikipedia embraces the notion of produsage as it relates to its four key characteristics. Analysing Wikipedia through these four key characteristics may aid in understanding how produsage works in greater detail.

Open Participation, Communal Evaluation: This is achieved through the use of its ‘any one can edit’ approach where open source software is utilised, which allows anyone with internet access to participate and contribute to Wikipedia.

Fluid Heterarchy, Ad Hoc Meritocracy: Although the knowledge and expertise of individuals who contribute to Wikipedia are not equal, they each have equal opportunity to contribute as much or as little they desire (Bauwens in Bruns 2008, 25).

Unfinished Artefacts, Continuing Process: Because Wikipedia is a system rather than a product it will remain a continuing process whereby individuals can always revise, edit and update its information. Unlike a traditional encyclopaedia, an entry can change from one day to the next, essentially leaving it as an unfinished artefact.

Common Property, Individual Rewards: Wikipedia’s highly collaborative environment results in a communal sense of ownership whereby Wikipedians may each derive individual rewards from contributing to social knowledge.

Similarly to a traditional encyclopedia, Wikipedia offers a neutral perspective on a broad range of topics from animals to bands and U.S presidents. Unlike a traditional encyclopedia however, Wikipedia entries can constantly be added as events unfold and can also be updated, edited and deleted. In this way, Wikipedia empowers its users to determine what information is valuable and important for other individuals. It also allows individuals to actively participate and collaborate to add their own areas of expertise to the Wikipedia community.

Although Wikipedia creates exciting Web 2.0 prospects in terms of open access and participation it is often widely criticised and considered an unreliable source at Universities. This is partly due to vandalised or disrupted entries that are then reported by the media who blame Wikipedia as a whole. These disruptions however, are minimal in contrast to the vast number of entries in Wikipedia and are often corrected in a short space of time. Honesty is therefore the greatest hurdle Wikipedia faces, as users not only have a right to contribute but also a responsibility and obligation to the online community. This however relies on self-censored contributions and ultimately depends on how individuals evaluate themselves. The media and academics should not blame Wikipedia in instances where inaccurate information is discovered rather they should edit the information themselves. As Roush (in Bruns 2008, 125) notes, “Indeed, the whole point of Wikipedia is that anyone can publish and anyone can edit. If you find an error fix it. If you think you can write a better article, pull out your pen.” 

Reference:
Bruns, A. (2008). Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage. New York: Peter Lang.

POWER TO THE PEOPLE: CITIZEN JOURNALISM

About a week ago, I heard sirens and a helicopter hovering around at the end of my street. At first I couldn’t be bothered moving from my comfortable position on the couch but then decided to investigate so I grabbed my camera and headed to the scene. When I got there, I was shocked to discover that a light plane had crashed on the nearby beach, there was emergency rescue crews everywhere but no news teams were on the scene yet. I decided to snap some photographs from where I was standing and when I got home thought about sending them into the local paper.

One of the photographs I took of the crash

I went online to the Sunshine Coast Daily’s website and was suprised to find an article and pictures from the crash so soon. As I examined the pictures closer I noticed the caption below indicated that the photographs had been taken by a witness on their mobile phone. The witness then sent the photos through to the newspaper via SMS and they were first to break the story.

The immediacy of new media technologies such as the internet and mobile phones challenge traditional corporate business models today. Traditionally, to have your story and photograph printed in a newspaper you would have to be an experienced journalist. Today however, these new technologies have influenced a new way of reporting to empower ordinary people and give them a voice to become citizen journalists.

“Citizen Journalism or Participatory Journalism is an evolving form of journalism through user generated content. When any common man in his capacity as a citizen of a nation takes up the initiative to report things or express his views about happenings around him then the occurrence is popularly termed as citizen journalism,” (Merinews, 2009).

Citizen journalism has emerged to challenge the traditional corporate news companies as many individuals now feel that these companies do not act in the best interest of the people. Through the internet’s blogs and social networking sites, individuals can write about or express their views and opinions on news and events without having any formal qualifications. Although many people consider this to be a good thing, it also raises the question of credibility; something that will no doubt need to be addressed as new media technologies continue to advance. The Bell (in Baym, 2008) note, “We need certain tastemakers, or editors, between sender and receiver. This is where (the good) blogs and online mags/forums come in handy. There is simply too much out there to take in so we need to help each other.”

 

Helping each other out

 

Despite the issue of credibility, there are many positive factors evident through citizen journalism such as leaving articles open for discussion, editing and commenting. The internet allows individuals to connect with not only other readers, but with additional professionals from various fields who can all contribute their own expertise to particular stories or issues in a social pool of knowledge reflecting the notion of collective intelligence. Jenkins (2008) argues, “Collective intelligence recognizes that there are diverse forms of expertise and that we learn more if we draw on as many different minds as possible rather than placing our trust in singular minds.”

It seems as though citizen journalism does what journalism should do at its most basic level; present a balanced story that is open for discussion and debate.

Care to start one now?

Reference: 

Baym, N. 2008. Online Community and Fandom. http://www.onlinefandom.com/wp content/uploads/2008/02/onlinefancommunity.pdf (May 1, 2009).

Jenkins, H. 2008. Sharing Notes About Collective Intelligence.http://www.henryjenkins.org/2008/02/last_week_my_travels_took.html (Accessed May  1, 2009). 

Merinews, 2009. Citizen Journalism. http://www.merinews.com/citizen_journalism.jsp (Accessed May 2, 2009).  

Prod-YOU-sage

“In the place of the giant maw are millions of mouths who can all talk back…We are all produsers now,”(Shirky in Bruns  2008, 17).

 

The shift from the industrial age into the informational internet economy has led to some significant changes for the way in which products are produced, distributed and consumed today. Traditionally, consumers were placed at the end of the production chain and had very limited opportunity to give feedback about a product. Then came along the democratic web 2.0 which changed this hierarchical system to give a voice to all users. The internet now allows any individual to actively participate in the value chain of a product which blurs the distinction between the traditional roles of producers and consumers. This concept is referred to as produsage and highlights the emergence of a new advanced and professional class of consumers (Bruns 2008, 11).

 

The Produsage Value Chain

Produsage.org founder, Axel Bruns (2008, 23) notes “in the online, networked, information economy, participants are not simply passive consumers, but active users, with some of them participating more strongly with a focus only on their personal use, some of them participating more strongly in ways which are inherently constructive and productive of social networks and communal content.”

In my professional interest of music, produsage is increasingly evident as the internet transcends space and social distance to give a voice to music fans who can have their say and interact with other fans and musicians all over the world. Fans can connect through online communities and niche social networking sites and collaborate with like-minded individuals who are passionate about music to contribute to different media such as film clips and remixes. 

Von Hippel (2005, 1) describes this phenomenon as “the democratization of innovation where users of products and services, both firms and individual consumers, are increasingly able to innovate for themselves’ and, through digital networks in the knowledge economy, these innovations can be distributed, shared and improved upon by user communities.” 

An example of music produsage is evident on the website, ccMixter, a “community music site featuring remixes licensed under Creative Commons where you can listen to, sample, mash-up, or interact with music in whatever way you want” (ccMixter, 2009). This website allows individuals to legally use samples from artists and contribute or collaborate with other users to create remixes, mash-ups or soundtracks.  

One of the key characteristics of produsage is its open participation to virtually anyone with access to the internet. This however, creates some potential threats to traditional top-down business models such as the music industry as the internet now empowers users. Nancy Baym (2008) notes “fans can and do build communities more rapidly and successfully now than ever before, with consequences not just for their own experience of music, but for everyone involved in the creation, distribution and promotion of music in any capacity. They’re making a new kind of music scene that transcends place and shakes up long-standing balances of power between fans and the music makers.” 

Reference:

Baym, N. 2008. Online Community and Fandom. http://www.onlinefandom.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/onlinefancommunity.pdf (Accessed April 22, 2009).

Bruns, A. 2008. Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage. New York: Peter Lang.

ccMixter, 2009. http://ccmixter.org/ (Accessed April 22, 2009). 

von Hippel, E. 2005. Democratizing Innovation. Cambridge MA:  MIT Press.