How do communities evaluate quality?

With the development of Citizen Journalism and interaction between professionals and audiences, the questions of credibility and quality of information are bound to appear. Individuals interested in news and current affairs are often susceptible to taking anything under the "news" banner as the truth and thus can be caught believing something that is better classed as opinion rather than newsworthy "truth".

Users may have to take all information from these sources (ones where user contribution reigns) and use common sense to determine what is fact and what is opinion or outright fiction.

Undertaking further research in the online environment is much easier that in the tangible (books, verbal communication) world as it simply involves using search engines such as Google, Yahoo etc., looking at other blog comments, academic sites, or the original post to gather data for generating an informed decision.

The method of policing the online collaboration phenomena is a difficult and still currently not clear method. Blogging and the like are meant to allow individuals to discuss their opinions openly, no matter how biased, incorrect, socially unacceptable or controversial they may be. It is not the writing of blogs that is the issue, it is who reads it and takes that information as a quality, credible source.

Current.com, a news site allows users to comment on news stories as they see fit. Their method of separating the two, is in fact that - separation. The professional news is located in one area of the site, whereas the 'viewer uploads' are in another. This allows users to view the news as it stands, view the comments and know they are just that, and add further if they desire.

Communities evaluate quality through their own opinions, wants, experiences and needs, and through additional information gathering if they want to do so. The fact that each user might find different levels of quality in each piece of communication cannot be helped or changed and makes the Internet and social networking online what it is today.

Whether this changes with the next revolution (however slow that process may be) of Web 2.0 remains to be seen.

Citizen Journalism - From Pamphlet to Blog

With the growth of blogs and online social networking platforms, many other industries have been affected and had to develop to cope with the many changes in the online environment. One industry in particular is journalism and the way the news is dispersed.

Previously, journalists would research stories to the best of their ability within the many geographic and temporal constraints, would write a piece of news and recite it to listeners or readers in its entirety. This process is still used though tangible newspapers, television and radio broadcasts and some online organisations.

Although these are still used, there is a growing trend to utilise what Steve Outing describes as "one of the hottest buzzwords in the news business these days" - Citizen Journalism.

Citizen journalism allows users to be a part of the journalism process in a way that has not previously been utilised. Professional journalists post stories as they usually would, but readers/listeners now have the ability to comment and add information through blogging, email and online forums.

To be continued...

One Account - Multiple Personalities

The issue many users have had with the first wave of online social networking sites such as Facebook and Myspace is the inability to clearly divide what external users see between the social aspect and more professional aspect of an individual's life. Without a clear division here, users have found the systems frustrating and have had issues with sections of their lives being shared with the wrong demographic. This is particularly notable in the employer-employee relationships.
Moshin Manji write in his article, Facebook and Google in Reference Checks - What Employers Use to Research You (2008), discusses the increasing trend of employers admitting to "using social networking sites and search engines as tools in conducting reference checks in the employment process." The issues arise when a social networking page created by an individual is meant only for social purposes and shows photos or discussions that the creator would prefer a potential employer did not see. The same issue can be encountered with family members, friends from different circles, educators etc. It is not, however, a breach of privacy if the user has produced the page and added the information onto the easily accessible site themselves, which is usually the case.

As users become more familiar with the capabilities of the sites, adaptations are made and new forms on social networking are created. One example of this is MOLI.com. MOLI’s creators describe it as “a next-generation social networking site where members can manage multiple profiles in one account. Members can separate their social, business and family relationships and keep control over their privacy.”

MOLI is targeted to enterprising individuals and small business owners and attempts to offer a “multimedia interactive platform ideal for both community collaboration and e-commerce” by allowing members to use different profiles to communicate and network with their diverse social, business and family networks independently. Users can also set up an e-commerce store and generate profit from their profiles.

I believe the benefits to these adaptations to the social networking platform as a whole, is primarily for the user who will be able to control their information, who it is shared among, and only reveal what side of their personality they wish to, to that particular audience. Photos of friends partying hard on the weekend do not have to be visible to employers and information of the new product you are attempting to launch does not have to be shown to your close group of friends on a regular basis. Rather than improving the privacy aspect of the online environment, I think MOLI is attempting to mimic the ‘real world’ social setting and how individuals usually share information about themselves depending on their audience.

To discover more about MOLI or to sign-up for an account click here.

How Does Open Source Work ( as an example of community produsage) different from commercial production?

Free and open source software (f/oss) is, as its name suggests, software that is available to users and allows them to modify, edit, re-distribute and add content as they need to depending on their individual needs/wants without financial reimbursement to the author/s.

This process falls directly under the banner of community produsage in that the community, or users of the software have control (either complete or to moderate) over the content and how it is distributed.

Feller, Fitzgerald, Hissam & Lakhani (2005) discuss the movement within Microsoft towards this open source software trend. Clearly, not all programs will become open source, but as is explained in by the authors, there is an understanding of the benefits.

"First, our customers want source access both for its technical benefits, and because transparency increases trust. Second, there is no uniform way for Microsoft to provide source access that covers all business and licensing needs across all product offerings. Third, customers will be more successful with the source code if solid tools and information are provided along with the technology."

Microsoft believes this shared source approach is a means for the company that directly uses the software to manipulate the system into one which is most useful to the organisation without weakening "its competitive differentiators or business model." In this sense, Microsoft is still being utilised as a product, but is offering far more to its users than ever before.

In a slightly different example, another type of open source as an example of community produsage is in its entirety, the Wikipedia environment. Users are able to add, edit and delete information, in essence changing the 'facts' and share this information with an infinite number of users who can also choose to add, edit and delete information where they see it as applicable. This is a service that does not cost the user financially, but simply allows the wide-spread sharing of knowledge and opinions without the cost incurred with publishing books or conducting face-to-face communications (such as interviews, presentations etc.).

Commercial production results in the completion of a 'product' which is presented to users in its finished form to disperse information (e.g. tangible books etc.) For users to be able to contribute to any changes in these products, a new version needs to be created. For example, if a user complained about the content of a book, the complaint was reviewed and proven correct and a new edition of the book was published to correct the error. In community produsage, users can continuously provide feedback or edit the content and method of distribution, two-way communication is utilised and it is the users who produce the product as an ever-changing system - thus the term, produsers. (Want to find more on produsage?)

What are the differences between commercial production and community produsage?

Although there are many differences between commercial production and community produsage, which will be explored further throughout this post, there is one primary point of difference to consider. Commercial production generates a finished product for distribution, which once completed, cannot be continuously improved upon without drastic changes (updates, new versions, product recalls, etc.). Users cannot be a part of this process in commercial production, except in the case of approaching producers with thoughts and concerns which may be taken into consideration with the next batch. Communication is primarily one-way with little-to-no interaction between producers and users.

Community produsage does not generate a product which is completed and unadaptable. Instead, what is created is like a living organism which adapts to it’s environment, is able to be manipulated, changed, added to and taken from. Blogs, Wikipedia, Forums/Discussions etc. all come under the community produsage banner, as once created, two-way communication allows the system to develop and be improved.

Community produsage is one of the outcomes that has stemmed from Web 2.0 which differs from Web 1.0 in it’s approach to user input and interaction.

How is Web 2.0 different from Web 1.0?

The primary difference between Web 2.0 and 1.0 is the role played by the user. Rather than a passive function through one way information distribution and communication, users play an interactive part in what and how information is distributed.

The terms 1.0 and 2.0 have been widely criticised for their literal meaning linking to a radical new development in the technical side of the web, rather than the more gradual, continuing movements and shifts. Axel Bruns quotes O’Reilly (2006) and his definition of Web 2.0 which suggests it, “is the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the internet as platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform”.

Users have the ability to create, collaborate, manipulate, collude, combine and in some cases completely alter the context of content online. There is also an increasing movement towards individual involvement through the growth in Blogs, Wiki, social networking platforms, forums, information sharing methods and access to diverse ranges of audiences.

Bruns and other authors he quotes, suggest this phenomena as ‘software-prosthesis’ which is focused towards the expansion of human capacity in a socially collaborative manner, but in the structured online environment.

Axel Bruns introduces the concept of the ‘produser’ in his book, Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life and Beyond: From Production to Produsage, which suggests that the definition between the roles of ‘consumer’, ‘user’ and ‘producer’ are no longer clear in Web 2.0. He states that “users are always already necessarily also producers of the shared knowledge base, regardless of whether they are aware of this role.” (Bruns, 2008) He suggests that there is now this new hybrid, the ‘produser’.

Produsers utilise Web 2.0 for its interactivity. They have opinions to voice, knowledge to share and a strong online presence.

Web 1.0 had a stronger focus on information distribution. Websites were created simply to display information from producer to user, with little or no interaction between the two. Online interaction was limited to email which took users away from the site and had minimal continuity or benefits for relationship building. Web 2.0 has adopted synergy and developed methods that mimic face-to-face communication as much as possible with the obvious temporal and geographic constraints of the users.

The most difficult part of analysing Web 1.0 and Web 2.0, is in the fact that the online environment is forever changing and developing. It is yet (and is questionable if it will ever) reach it’s potential and maintain status quo. With new technologies, concepts, abilities, connectivity and needs within society, Web 2.0 could soon be surpassed by an even more interactive and socially beneficial trend.