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.
Hi,
I loved this blog! It’s really interesting how you address the different areas of produsage such as fluid heterarchy, common property and most importantly open participation. By touching on the four main elements of produsage you highlight your understanding of Wikipedia as a user-generated tool for information. The intersting topic of credibility arises as you’ve stated with people openly editing pages within the Wikipedia site. Despite this, I think the whole point of Wikipedia, as a representation of social knowledge (as Bruns argues), dictates that it need not get overly caught up within the justification element. If Wikipedia was used as a dictionary (which it’s website it recommends against) then issues of credibility and justification would be highly relevant. As a social tool that provides socio-cultural interpretations of information I think Wikipedia serves it’s purpose thanks to the minimal regulation of the site. I love the way that you don’t get caught up in the issues of credibility and control as your final paragraph outlines that indeed the whole point to Wikipedia is that it is open to collaboration and editing. If someone has a different thought on that subject or can see an error they have the opportunity to fix it. Developing on that idea a little further, what really interests me is that Wikipedia can be used as a tool of language evolution. I think this is an area that hasn’t really been examined yet and would love to know your thoughts on it. What do you think the purpose of Wikipedia is and does this impact on the way sites like this have evolved and will continue to evolve in the future?
Thanks again for a great read. Manelle