WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1
Week 13
Apr. 17th: Public Goods in Online Settings
Kollock, Peter. 1999. “The Economies of Online Cooperation: Gifts and Public Goods in Cyberspace.” Chapter 9 in Communities in Cyberspace, Kollock and Smith, eds
Apr. 19th: Collective Action in Online Settings
Gurak, Laura J. 1999. “The Promise and the Peril of Social Action in Cyberspace: Ethos, Delievery, and the Protests over MarketPlace and the Clipper Chip.” Chapter 10 in Communities in Cyberspace, Kollock and Smith, eds.
Mele, Christopher. 1999. “Cyberspace and Disadvantaged Communities: The Internet as a Tool for Collective Action.” Chapter 12 in Communities in Cyberspace, Kollock and Smith, eds.
January 2nd, 2007posted by:
WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1
11 Comments
1. jbward | April 16th, 2007 at 11:11 am
Do we like music because other people like it?
The following article in Sunday’s NY Times addresses two topics we’ve recently discussed: 1) opinion leaders, information cascades, and lock-in. 2) Assessing the quality of something based on others’ reactions to it.
Is Justin Timberlake a Product of Cumulative Advantage? (nytimes.com)
The following quote from the article sounds very familiar:
“the long-run success of a song depends so sensitively on the decisions of a few early-arriving individuals, whose choices are subsequently amplified and eventually locked in by the cumulative-advantage process…”
April 16th, 2007 at 11:11 am |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 12. jantin | April 16th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
What I love about this analysis is that it seems to completely remove our sense of agency. Apparently whatever we think has to do with who we like and who is popular is just an exercise in retrospect. Really, it’s all random and unpredictable - you know, a butterfly flaps its wings in Japan and it rains in Topeka?
Here’s the link to the original article in Science - it’s pretty short, though a bit dense:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/311/5762/854
April 16th, 2007 at 3:46 pm |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 13. n8agrin | April 16th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
For further reading on this subject I highly recommend “The Success of Open Source” by Steven Weber. Weber’s approach is much more focused on the Linux case study, but explores the social aspects, and network effects that have fostered Linux development.
Kollock’s notion of ‘paying it forward’ as motivation for contribution to the web is compelling, and he identifies many of the possibly motivations that others have come up with for contributions to the ‘gift’ economy. Low cost, reputation, altruism, efficacy, don’t repeat what someone else has done, all of these are possible motivations for contribution into anonymous networks.
What I think is most interesting about these theories is a point that I feel is often glossed over, or simply implied but not explicitly discussed. That point is the anonymity the web affords, and as Kollock recognizes persistent identities, but, I would also argue, identities which are simple to change, switch or destroy. Anonymity reduces the barrier to contribute more, I believe, than any other factor because the author can contribute without concern of permanent reputation blemishes. Of course, in today’s Internet, with Google cache, and the wayback machine, it’s harder to eliminate those damning contributions, however the cost of switch identities completely is still very low.
I especially like the NetDay case study, which I think is an interesting demonstration of how a decentralized network can affect collaboration and cooperation in the real world. Here of course the issue of trust comes into play, and it is questionable, though perhaps not in an extreme way, how the volunteers can be trusted to carry out their roles or not act in a malicious way. I suspect in ’96 volunteers were taken (as they often are) on blind faith, though it’s still a compelling question. An aside, it’s somewhat depressing to know that in ’96 we had mapping technology advanced enough to plot features on an online map, yet today very few applications utilize mapping technologies well.
2603 April 16th, 2007 at 10:13 pm |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 14. celeste | April 17th, 2007 at 11:40 am
I think it is interesting that Kollock talks about motivation as being generally self-interest, even when you are helping out a complete stranger, either because of building up a particular reputation or banking your intellectual karma or (my favorite) the feeling of efficacy. The net becomes a particularly interesting place to study human interaction and motivation precisely because the costs to help (or hinder) another person are so low. Like n8agrin, I also was struck by the idea that anonymity helps lower these costs in many ways because you can offer help without necessarily double checking yourself if you don’t have to worry so much about being right 100% of the time (they don’t know you anyway) - whether that’s good or bad is a different question. Basically, you’ve reduced the risk and possible time investment without reducing the payoff (if it turns out to be good advice, you can always continue to use that identity or point out that it is one of yours).
Another interesting thing from reading this chapter was thinking about what it took to coordinate people before there were websites and e-mail lists and newsgroups. I think back to the old phone-tree I was once a part of and can’t even imagine relying on such one-way, inefficient methods (it took me a while to remember what we used to do!).
Finally, I wonder what the effects of the ubiquitous privileged group are - every man can now reach millions, but how you rise above the millions that can do that goes back to the article on Justin Timberlake.
April 17th, 2007 at 11:40 am |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 15. daniela | April 17th, 2007 at 11:40 am
According to Kollock, posting something online automatically makes it a public good, making it available for public consumption. So this blog is one of the gang- a good for public consuption on the internet. Since the internet has reduced the cost of contribution, more people will contribute, but there are many other reasons for this larger supply of online public goods. Here the value associated with the good becomes important. Is a good necessarily “good”? This other connotation, not so separate from it’s use in this context, is crucial for understanding the motivations behind contribution. If efficacy is one motivation, does the outcome of the action also contribute to one’s decision to contribute? The value associated with the contribution seems crucial for motivating higher quality. As Kollock points out, people can be dissuaded by the risk involved in contributing to a non-beneficial, lost cause. But a “lost cause” and something non-beneficial can be different. In any evaluatiion of whether to contribute something online, I could have conflicting motivations. Parsing those motivations is what I agree with Kollock is so difficult. But I think those motivations depend on aspects of the interaction not specified by Kollock, aspects of off-line life, our interpretations of social cues and graphic form and structure that fit in with our cultural norms and expectations. A lot to look into here.
April 17th, 2007 at 11:40 am |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 16. eunkyoung | April 20th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Yesterday, I was searching for a scone recipe. I usually search other people’s blogs, because if you are lucky, you come across a blog that has all the detail images of step-by-step instructions. Imagine you are mixing and rolling out dough, your hands are dirty, and taking a picture only to upload them with the recipe in your blog. So I was always wondering, even searching for the recipe with high-quality photos, who does that? and why??? (I am one of those 98% free-riders, who never make a contribution.)
According to Kollock’s article, there are three reasons - 1) in the expectation that one will receive useful help and information in return, 2) the effect of contributions on one’s reputation, and 3) a sense that they have some effect on this environment. It is interesting that none of these three reasons don’t require any assumptions about altruism. After all, these reasons are based on self-interest. It seems that the author intentionally prioritized self-interest reasons on top of human’s altruism. Does this mean that people really do good things for their own interests rather than their altruism, as well? Kollock’s article was quite shocking to me as I was just believing people’s behaviors (including uploading fantastic recipes with photos) act of pure altruism.
April 20th, 2007 at 2:41 pm |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 17. johnson | April 22nd, 2007 at 2:01 pm
This week’s articles really hit home for me. I’ve always been interested in reading about why people use the internet as religiously as they do. People are always spending hours upon hours contributing to an entity that seems to give little back in return. At first glance, people think it’s altruism but Kollock pointed out how you can trace it to a more selfish motivation. People share information in hopes of getting something in return, to gain reputation, or even to just satisfy a need out there. I find this incredibly accurate as I wonder why I run this website for my gaming friends. I feel that outside of the game, I wanted a central point, a place to convene and hence decided to research on a way to create a forum for this group of gamers. It requires web hosting, post editing, and even graphics design, all of which is new to me. And yet, I still find the time during the week to manage this “public good” to share with everyone. To be honest, I enjoy all the nice remarks that have been sent my way and I’m also proud to have learned something new. I may have spent quite a bit of time and resources to create the website but it’s also has given me back rewards. It’s a place for me to keep in contact with my friends outside of the game.
Furthermore, this gets me thinking of why people share such valuable information on such places as Usenet. I feel that when people do so, they do so with the expectation that they are the owners of the information. It’s almost like a race. Whoever can get the information out first and get the most views is the owner of that piece of information. Who wouldn’t want to be recognized for sharing an incredibly hot deal; in the future, people will point to that person and speak of how generous he/she was to share the information. Because these things are public goods, they are “indivisible”. This means “that one person’s consumption of the good does not reduce the amount available to another” (Kollock 1999). That’s exactly right; my usage of the item has no effect on anyone else’s use. So it doesn’t harm me in any way to share. I believe this is the reason why the Internet flourishes with enthusiasts. When people are bored, they are confronted with this enticing medium to share information. Fame, perhaps on a small scale, can easily be achieved in a matter of seconds. Talk about a revolutionary concept.
25e5 April 22nd, 2007 at 2:01 pm |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 18. elisa | April 22nd, 2007 at 9:31 pm
I read with great interest Mele’s chapter about the internet as a tool for collective action, partly because I am interested in how non-profit organizations use the internet to support their mission and reach (and possibly enlarge) their constituency. The quote he reproduces from the housing authority correspondence (“(the development activities) will not be managed by outside committee … but by WHA staff and Board of Commissioners”) summarizes perfectly the power that the internet can have over the status quo: information can circulate in an easier way, and existing power structures are shaken – not necessarily overthrown, but at least a little upset. This challenge to the “tradition of political discourse” reminded me of the intellectual vs non-intellectual bloggers described by Doodstar in the Iranian blogosphere. The internet is a very effective tool to challenge existing power dynamics, although it is also, as always, a tool used by existing hegemonic powers to maintain their predominance. Mele describes its main assets – in terms of collective action – as flexibility and connection to a wider outside world, although this connection seems to me more and more used to find information, rather than to get help, especially if the ones looking for help are a small group. When the women activists at Jervay went online, there wasn’t yet much competition for the attention to similar cases. Now, as any small NGO will confirm, gaining an on-line following has become a sophisticated marketing exercise.
What I found very interesting was that the doubts Mele raises about whether or not online communication leads to a more democratic interaction still stand – new forms of inequality are created, as we’ve seen in the digital divide discussion and articles a while ago. We are still waiting to see whether once everyone is wired, things will change, but probably not.
April 22nd, 2007 at 9:31 pm |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 19. jilblu | April 22nd, 2007 at 9:57 pm
On Mele’s “Cyberspace and Disadvantaged Communities”:
I can’t help but wonder what was the final resolution with the Jervay public housing redevelopment project. As Mele states, the efforts of the residents’ organization gave it much power in setting the agenda at the meetings. This shift in power was not unnoticed, and the residents were warned that they were an advisory committee only, without the power to make any actual decisions.
It seems like the housing project was eventually redeveloped (http://www.wha.net/), but I can’t tell if the residents’ concerns are reflected in the final design, or if the project ultimately used any of the schemes developed by the volunteer architects.
Since this piece was about a disadvantaged community, it reminds me of Mark Warschauer’s “Reconceptualizing the Digital Divide.” Warschauer’s piece discusses how the ‘digital divide’ is not really about a lack of access to ICT, but instead more similar to a literacy problem. “Literacy acquisition obviously requires the development of a variety of skills, knowledge, and attitude, including cognitive processing skills; background knowledge about the world; and the motivation, desire, and confidence to read - and this has important parallels to the kinds of skills, knowledge, and attitudes necessary to make meaningful use of ICT.”
Although lacking in resources, the Jervay residents’ organization was not illiterate. Some members had some computer skills. Although they didn’t initially have access to a computer, they knew enough to ask for an Internet connection. Once they got one, they quickly found the relevant listservers, and were able to solicit expert advice.
In this case, the issue really was about a ‘digital divide.’ The Jervay residents had the skills, knowledge, and motivation to fight back. They had enough background knowledge to understand what they did not know and whom to ask for help. Once they had access to computers, they were pretty savvy about getting the word out on their cause.
April 22nd, 2007 at 9:57 pm |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 110. Ken-ichi | April 23rd, 2007 at 6:07 pm
On Kollock
Interesting piece, makes me want to read the rest of the book. I am intrigued by the idea a sense of efficacy. The idea being that one of the reasons an individual might contribute to a public good is the simple sensation of having had a noticeable impact on his environment. Not reputation or any hope of reciprocity. Just knowing he had left a mark on the world. At first I was thinking this was related to investment, but investment is largely predicated on an expectation of return. Sense of efficacy seems more ambiguous, less rational, but, anecdotally at least, seems like a very real potential motive.
One problem I had with this essay is that Kollock seems overly optimistic. For instance, in his section on “Changes in Benefits” in online interaction, he makes no mention of the decreased value of goods to accompanies the reduced cost of contribution. For instance, a printed and hand-signed letter to your Senator probably carries more weight than an email, and way more weight than some boilerplate email you filled out.
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:07 pm |WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 111. Bernt Wahl | May 15th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
My Sister the Blogger
A theme in many of these papers is collective activism, as Howard calls them smart mobs. As time goes on more social interaction will take place through online communication.
The social fabric of blogging has become a way of live, it has evolve from apprehension of just a decade ago.
May 15th, 2007 at 2:33 pm |In 1995, I built set of web sites for family members. Two sites were for my sister’s Karin Nunn then (28) and Kristina Wahl then (16). There I posted pictures, what they liked to do and story elements. The idea is they could voice out to the world issues that concerned them and other interesting tidbits. The sites were hardly ever updated because of the complexity levels. Karin did not mind it because at least now she had a web presents.
Kristina’s story was different. One day my youngest sister Kristina, told me that an annoying admire had found the site and if I could please remove the site. She was afraid that he could use it to track her even thought the site was being hosted on the opposite side of the world. I was a little perplexed but I did so. Fast-forward 10 years and Kristina is a professional bogger employed by Brigitte Women’s magazine to write about her experiences living in California [blog.brigitte.de/kalifornien/] my how times have changed.
WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1WordPress database error: [Table 'i203.is203_users' doesn't exist]
SELECT * FROM is203_users WHERE ID = '1' LIMIT 1Trackback this post