“Money Money Money” – Isn’t funny in a produsage world

Sustainability is defined as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”
(Glossary of International Trade Terms).
__________________________________

Sustainability is a term often applied when discussing issues of climate change and its effects on Mother Nature. But as we now embrace new technologies and enter a new realm of online resources, we need to ensure that this alternate world and its resources are also sustainable.

….is the produsage model sustainable?

As I reflect on the principles of produsage, I can’t help question the sustainability of this model in a new media environment. Although at present the model is being embraced and accepted within online communities, I fear that this interest may diminish in the future. For my final blog, I wish to discuss three issues which I feel reduce the sustainability of the produsage model.      

Produsage relies on large communities of people with enough knowledge and interest to contribute to a project. Axel Bruns (2008) states that,

“produsage projects must be sealed with a small kernel of ideas which are sufficiently interesting to attract a larger community of participants and kick-start their wider processes of innovation”.

Within a large community, it is unknown who the contributors are, and whether they have any knowledge or expertise on the topic. The produsage model has high potential to allow unprofessional ‘amateurs’ to contribute to topics they know nothing about – leading to unreliable web resources. Although these contributors may have an interest, it does not mean that they are providing credible and resourceful information.

I was told from a very young age to always name my possessions – from my pencils to my assignments. A necessary precaution of produsage goes against what most of us have always been told, and states that produsage content is “shared, not owned” (Bruns 2007). Axel Bruns (2008) believes that, “copyright and patent law, which strongly privilege existing holders of intellectual property and actually provide disincentives against open source knowledge”. I feel that people who contribute knowledge and expertise to project need to be recognised. In real life if we produce quality work we are individually recognised and rewarded. I fear that it won’t be too long until contributors to produsage projects want acknowledgement and recognition for their work.

I feel that the most important issue is money and rewards. Axel Bruns (2007) suggests that, “produsers are able to gain personal merit from their individual contributions, and such individual rewards”.  This means that the produsage model relies on people making contributions on the basis of personal merit and satisfaction. Essentially, contributors are volunteers who continually contribute ideas and knowledge with no physical reward. But do these contributors expect rewards? I think that it is unfair to expect that people will continually contribute professionalism, information, and knowledge, without receiving any physical reward or recognition. Although Axel Bruns (2007) does acknowledge that in some cases rewards have been tangible, such as accreditation and employment outcomes. However, for the majority of contributors this is not the case. I believe that to create reliable and sustainable resources, contributors need to be rewarded as they would in the real world.  

  Only time will tell the future for produsage. In a time when technologies are changing so rapidly; common practice is made history within a few moments. All I know is, that today, right now, this second, I do not believe the produsage model is sustainable

… But what do I know – I’m only an amateur.    
__________________________________

Bruns, A. 2007. Produsage.org – From Production to Produsage: Research into User-Led Content Creation. http://produsage.org/ (accessed April 24, 2009).

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

Diagnose me Dr. Am!

I remember flicking through the pages of my favorite magazine, to the ‘Dolly Doctor’ section. Readers used to write into the magazine, and the resident health expert would reply with relevant and factual information about the particular health problem.

__________________________________

Traditional forms of media and expertise have been transformed into the online realm, as many people now look to the internet for access to health information. However, how can people be assured that the information was written by a health expert?

…have they over-stepped the Pro/Am divide?

The produsage model essentially breaks down the divide between professionals and amateurs, allowing anybody to contribute to freely-available information and knowledge online. The bottom-up approach, applied though produsage, means that contributors (“amateurs”) are generating information, knowledge and ideas between one another, rather than being dictated to by a higher authority (“professionals”). However, I believe that this model may have detrimental effects when applied in a health context.

Health is an important subject that needs to be delivered with expertise and knowledge. When people seek health advice, that it is accurate and assured. Online communities now give amateurs the opportunity to give advice and opinion on health-related issues, such as this discussion on Yahoo! Answers. Axel Bruns (2008) states that,

“‘expertise’ exists on a sliding vertical scale stretching from recognized leaders in their fields and disciplines through a variety of lesser ‘professional’ and ‘Pro-Am’ processors of knowledge to enthusiasts”.

I acknowledge that many people may have personal experience relating to health problems, however they are not professionals and they do not acquire the appropriate knowledge and expertise to provide advice to users online. There are three key issues concerning health advice in the online realm that need to be considered:

1. Quality of the information – Health relies on professionals to provide quality information and knowledge to patients. Since health advice has been made available online, it is often difficult to distinguish quality and credible information, and whether the information was written by a professional or amateur. Is the information that is available online credible and reliable?
2. Confidentiality – It is important when providing health advice that a patient’s information is kept confidential. If a person who is not a trained professional is giving health advice, how can it be ensured that they apply to the same strict confidentiality code that rules professional health service?
3. Liability – Health professionals hold a lot of credibility, but also responsibility. If they diagnose a patient wrongly, or enforce wrong information, then they are liable for any damages that they have caused the patient. When a person uses online resources, such as The Online Medical Blog, they are unaware of who is providing the information, and if it is written by an amateur or a professional. If an amateur provides the wrong diagnosis or gives unsatisfactory advice, then who is liable if something detrimental happens to the patient?

Health professionals have begun to follow the new media trend of online communities and advice forums.  Professionals need to learn to embrace new media concepts, and creatively think of ways to embrace new media, and still generate an income. Professionals working on Liveperson.com are attempting to use online resources to make money, by making themselves available for users at a price. Other health professionals are providing services and advice through free online resources, such as the Symptom Checker.

We don’t expect to see an untrained doctor behind the desk at our medical centre, so why should an amateur to be giving us medical advice online?

__________________________________

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

Wiki-what?

According to wise geek, an encyclopedia contains “general information about many topics or areas”. This source of collective intelligence and general knowledge was once only found as a large book with a hard cover, is now an online resource – Wikipedia.

… But is it really an encyclopedia?

Wikipedia is a “collaboratively created and edited online encyclopedia” (Bruns 2008). Although it is not the first online encyclopedia, it is by far the most successful (Bruns 2008). Known for its “anyone can edit” function, Wikipedia allows the general public to act as co-creators of the content (Bruns 2008), whereby people collaboratively combine knowledge and skills to create content. Unlike traditional encyclopedia’s (such as Britannica), Wikipedia operates without any concrete hierarchy. Jenkins states that, “the Wikipedia community… functions as a self-correcting adhocracy. Any knowledge that gets posted can and most likely will be revised and corrected by other readers” (Bruns 2008). But who decides what is worth knowing?

The contributors to Wikipedia, called Wikipedians, are people who work hard to teach the world “stuff” that they are enthusiastic about (Bruns quoting Sanger 2008). Bruns (2008) believes that the Wikipedia community allows participants to “[work] with fellow knowledge-holders… and thus being part of… a strong community of like-minded peers”. This essentially means that anyone can upload or edit a Wikipedia page. I doubt the credibility of this resource as an encyclopedia when “Wikipedians” use the edit function to vandalise a page to slander a person, religion, or issue. Many of the pages also contain insufficient referencing and citations. Axel Bruns (2008) admits that Wikipedia

“[does not] guarantee neither quality nor accuracy, nor does… the quality of the content in the Wikipedia… improve over time”.

This makes me question as a professional of the future whether this resource is credible and valid, and the accuracy of the information and knowledge that the general public are receiving through this online encyclopedia. Although, Wikipedia have legitimacy rules in place, I still find it difficult to believe that the content is in fact credible, and worthy of reference.

Prior to the online era, encyclopedias were based on a hierarchical system that was considered credible and professional. This system contained a group of professional writers and editors to produce a hard-covered book. However, this system has proven to be impractical in a new media society from the “abject failure” of Nupedia (Bruns 2008). This website aimed to be an online reference source by processing articles through a “seven-stage process of editing, fact checking, and peer review” (Bruns 2008). After 18 months, this delayed and tedious process meant that only 12 articles had been published.

Many people agree with me that Wikipedia is not entirely credible. When participating in a tutorial discussion at university, many of my classmates admitted that they only used Wikipedia as a “starting point”, rather than a reliable web resource. This indicates that currently Wikipedia is not a credible source of knowledge and information, therefore not fitting the description of an encyclopedia. Essentially, Wikipedia is a web-based community of knowledge and opinion. I agree with blogger Mark Ollig, that it is more appropriate to call Wikipedia an “internet message board”, rather than an encyclopedia.

I believe that currently we are faced with two extremes; on one side we have proof that the traditional methods of publishing are not effective in the new media society, but now we have a source that is neither professional nor credible naming itself as an “encyclopedia”.  Is it possible to create an online encyclopedia that incorporates positive aspects from each of the models so that our web resources are credible and reference-worthy?

Is Wikipedia really an encyclopedia? - I don’t think so.

__________________________________

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

“The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” – Citizen Journalism

Throughout my life I have never considered a career in journalism. However, the tides have seemingly changed as I sit at my laptop, collaborating thoughts, ideas and knowledge for my blog about the new media theme of the week. I am a new addition to an online community of news reporters and contributors; I am a citizen journalist.

Bowman and Willis describe participatory journalism as, “the act of a citizen, or group of citizens, playing an active role in the process of collecting, reporting, analysing, and disseminating news and information… [providing]… relevant information that a democracy requires” (Bruns quoting Bowman and Willis 2008, 144). But why are people seeking information from citizen journalists rather than mainstream “professional” journalists?

People often scrutinise mainstream media for being bias, because of the lack of diversity in ownership. Blogger Noam Chomsky (n.d.) rightly states that,

“The media serve the interests of state and corporate power, which are closely interlinked, framing their reporting and analysis in a manner supportive of established privilege and limiting debate and discussion accordingly”.

Due to political and social biases in mainstream media, it seems that the principle of the fourth estate, reporting honestly in the public’s best interest, is no longer the fundamental role of mainstream journalists. Because of this, there is a gap in reporting that needs to be filled, opening the door for citizen journalism.  

The following three reasons are why I choose citizen journalism over mainstream media.

1. Citizen journalism offers a range of sources to seek out “the news”. In the past the public have only had access to mainstream media that only offers one state and one national newspaper. However, the public are now able to access the news from a variety of online sources written by citizen journalists. An example of the content posted by citizen journalists in Australia, include sites such as Crikey, New Matilda, and On line Opinion. As Bruns (2008) states, “citizens have become less deferential and dependant, and more consumerist and volatile” (Bruns quoting Coleman and Gotze 2008, 157). This concept has been demonstrated in the shift from mainstream media to citizen journalism, because the public are now able to be selective with the type of news that they wish to view.
2. Citizen journalism “fills in the gaps” that mainstream media purposely forget. Mainstream media is known to have its biases, and often leaves gaps in their stories and unanswered questions. Citizen journalists delve deeper into these news stories, and answer the questions that the public want answered. I believe that the credibility of the mainstream media is questionable, and I am relieved to notice a shift as online networks have “become a medium for everyone’s voice, not just the few that can afford to buy multimillion-dollar printing presses” (Bruns quoting Gillmor 2008, 144).  
3. Citizen journalism creates a forum for debate. Citizen journalism creates a forum for debate by allowing readers to comment on the articles. This tool promotes collaboration between the initial reporter and the readers, and encourages the readers to comment with an opposing view or additional information. Citizen journalism enables the public to express their opinion through these forums, rather than just shaking a fist at the television in disagreement (and having no control or opinion).   

We the media is a book written by newspaper columnist and blogger Dan Gillmor (2006), commenting on the emerging trend of content being produced “by the people, for the people”. He discusses the threat that citizen journalism will have on mainstream media, and encourages mainstream journalists to “change or become irrelevant”.  This means that if mainstream media do not begin to embrace the concepts of citizen journalism, in all its honesty, their efforts to provide the public with “the news” will become ignored.  

If you want the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, your choice is clear; choose Citizen Journalism.

__________________________________

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

Chomsky, N. n.d. Mainstream Media. http://www.afairerworld.org/_Communications/mainstreammedia.html (accessed May 2, 2009).

Gillmor, D. 2006. We the media. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=Dgfufx9H1BcC&dq=we+the+media&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=9v_7SZqXEKXg6gP7srioAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#PPP1,M1 (accessed May 2, 2009)

Produsage Affecting Professionalism

As my first official blog entry, I aim to inform my readers of a media term, “produsage”. This is a term that I recently stumbled across, which I feel has sparked an interesting and controversial discussion topic for this blog.  

Axel Bruns describes produsage as “the collaborative and continuous building and extending of existing content in pursuit of further improvement” (Bruns, 2007). Axel suggests that participants are no longer producers in a conventional sense; the term implies that the distinction between producers and consumers no longer exists (Bruns, 2007). This shift in the way people are collaborating ideas and information has implications on issues concerning authorship and quality of contributions.

A key principle of produsage, ‘equipotentiality’, assumes that

“while the skills and abilities of all participants in the produsage project are not equal, they have an equal ability to make a worthy contribution to the project”  (Bruns quoting Michel Bauwens, 2007).

This concept evokes a range of criticisms from the perspective of a new media professional of the future.

It has always been enforced throughout my life that education and learning is the key to success. The principle of ‘equipotentiality’ makes me question the relevance of a university education, because it is now possible for a participant in an online produsage project to have no formal education, and still have the same credibility and professional status as a university graduate.  I feel that this concept of produsage is degrading the status of legitimate professionals by allowing anybody to contribute to online knowledge and information resources.

In the past we would access information in books and journals written by scholarly professionals. Due to produsage, we now look to online resources that may be written by a group of people with an interest, but no professional background. How does this affect the quality and credibility of the information that we are receiving?

The fundamental construct of produsage is for people to collaboratively work together to build and extend and improve on information and knowledge (Bruns, 2007). However, for this knowledge and information to be accepted in today’s society it needs to be reliable and credible. I believe that the principle of inclusivity that is encouraged by produsage, may have a negative effect on the intellectual value of resources by allowing anyone to contribute to  projects.

Wikipedia is a prime example used to explain produsage in practice. This online encyclopaedia allows people who have “different levels of knowledge about any given topic” (Jenkins quoting Bruns, 2008) to contribute their knowledge and information to this online resource. I question the validity of this online resource when university assessment often does not acknowledge referencing to Wikipedia, because it is not considered a reliable resource.

In an interview that Henry Jenkins conducted with Axel Bruns, Axel discusses a possible solution to the problem. He suggests that “established expertise in a field should be highlighted to other contributors to produsage processes” (Jenkins quotes Bruns, 2008), so that both the users and the producers know the degree of professionalism that the contributor has. Integrating this idea into to collaborative projects would increase the resources credibility, but does it defeat the fundamental principle of produsage?

__________________________________

Bruns, A. 2007. Produsage.org – From Production to Produsage: Research into User-Led Content Creation. http://produsage.org/ (accessed April 24, 2009).

Henry, J. 2008. From Production to Produsage: Interview with Axel Bruns (Part Two). http://henryjenkins.org/2008/05/from_production_to_produsage_i.html (accessed April 25, 2009).