This link has been bookmarked by 28 people and liked by 1 people. It was first bookmarked on 05 Apr 2008, by Thanasis Priftis.
-
29 Jan 12
-
28 Jan 12
-
09 Jul 10
-
Such free cooperation can only be hindered ‘artificially’, through either legal means ( intellectual property regimes) or through technical restrictions such as Digital Rights Management, which essentially hinder the social innovation that can take place.
-
- open and free raw cultural material to use;
- participative structures to process it;
- and commons-based property forms to protect the results from private appropriation.
The expansion of peer production is dependent on cultural/legal conditions. It requires;
-
In most cases, distribution beats decentralization and centralization as the best way to deal with complexity.
-
The sphere of commons-oriented peer production, based on stronger links between cooperators, think Linux or Wikipedia, usually combines a self-governing community, with for-benefit institutions (Apache Foundation, Wikimedia Foundation, etc…), which manage the infrastructure of collaboration, and a ecology of businesses which create scarcities around the commons, and in return support the commons from which they derive their value.
-
Finally, crowdsourcing occurs when it is the institutions themselves which attempt to create a framework, where participation can be integrated in their value chain, and this can take a wide variety of forms. This is generally the field of co-creation.
-
We must note that monetary value that is being realized by the capital players, is – in many if not most of the cases, not of the same order as the value created by the social innovation processes.
-
peer governance requires a priori consensus on the common object. But society as a whole lacks such consensus by definition: it is a decentralized collection of competing interests and worldviews, rather than a distributed network of free agents. Therefore, for society at large, there is no alternative to a revitalized democratic political scenario based on representation.
-
-
26 Feb 10
Wildcat2030 wildcat\nMarkets may be changing from a logic of pure capitalism (making commodities for exchange, so as to increase capital), to logics where the logic of exchange is subsumed to the logic of partnership.
-
18 Sep 08
-
20 Jan 08
Jonathan SimmonsMarkets may be changing from a logic of pure capitalism (making commodities for exchange, so as to increase capital), to logics where the logic of exchange is subsumed to the logic of partnership.
-
07 Dec 07
-
18 Nov 07
Howard SilvermanMichel Bauwens introduces here the foundational concepts of
peer governance, production and property, analyzing their traits and
characteristics. -
15 Nov 07
Howard Rheingold
Markets may be changing from a logic of pure capitalism (making commodities for exchange, so as to increase capital), to logics where the logic of exchange is subsumed to the logic of partnership.-
Peer to peer social processes are bottom-up processes whereby agents in a distributed network can freely engage in common pursuits, without external coercion.
It is important to realize that distributed systems differ from decentralized systems, essentially because in the latter, the hubs are obligatory, while in the former, they are the result of voluntary choices
-
Distributed networks do have constraints, internal coercion, that are the conditions for the group to operate, and they may be embedded in the technical infrastructure, the social norms, or legal rules.
Despite these caveats, we have here a remarkable social dynamic, which is based both on voluntary participation in the creation of common goods, which are made universally available to all.
-
-
04 Nov 07
-
30 Oct 07
-
29 Oct 07
-
28 Oct 07
Michel Bauwenspolitical update of p2p theory, put in form by Robin Good
-
21 Oct 07
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.