So, I was about halfway through the The Key Characteristics of Produsage when I realized that I wasn't understanding much of it and wished the author had thought to include some examples of what he/she was trying to explain. Then, I thought of a few of my own examples, as the Wiki parallel inevitably clicked.
Wikipedia's community is one without "pure producers" or "pure consumers". Instead of producers being those with the means of production, anyone on Wiki can consume- and contribute- to the encyclopedia. Some people contribute a lot. Others may opt only to contribute to articles that interest them. The vast majority don't contribute at all, but reap the benefits of others.
The same type of demographics apply to torrent sharing communities. A very small amount of people design the programs that a much larger number will later use. A bigger minority contribute their own files for the majority to download.
Eventually, as Produsage points out, consumers become producers without having to do much at all. Software becomes better-more user friendly so users can almost effortlessly share and/or contribute. Being "part of the show" ceases to be something only people with know-how can do.
Ideally, we arrive at the point where their are no more producers, but the consumers produce completely through the "consumption process"-either effortlessly or unknowingly. I can see how this works online, but I wonder how Produsage's theory would apply to the real world? In this sense, the article reminds me of Lankshear & Knobel's.
The internet has the potential to become a sort of utopia void of class differences (or, at least, it's moving in that direction). But I have serious doubts we'll reach this utopian version of the net that's a product of Produsage before we reach the greed based vision- an internet colonized and mediated by wireless companies and the service providers.
I might be falling into my usual role as the cynic a little too quickly. Even so, we do need to admit that the internet, while it has led to produsage on the interent, isn't exactly prodused. An internet which is sustained simply by people using the internet and not by service providers, is, I think, the ideal. But I doubt the internet we have now is that internet.
Marx's ideas are too good for this world- and, for now, this internet. But maybe one day we'll a cyberspace that people just by taking part of it.
Now, I haven't read "Produsage" yet, but I can get a good idea from reading everyone's blogs...
ReplyDeleteGiven the human propensity to categorize and look for patterns (even where there are none) there will probably always be class distinctions. The better angels of our nature will have to cohabit with the snivelling ugly ones. Think the net will be completely "colonized", or will the same struggle of the utopiasts and the conglomocorps just continue?
I like the idea of a more participatory ethic, but only if those participating have something to say. It's like an open mic night - yes, you have every right to be there, but if you commandeer the sounds system just to screw around, doesn't mean I have to pay attention.
Is it wise that we don't have to have any special skills to "share and/or contribute"? If you take that in the wrong way it sounds elitist, but are there any standards anymore, or have we relativized ourselves into a cultural wasteland?
Or are we worrying far too much? Film at 11!
liz, you comments are much appreciated.
ReplyDeleteI too wonder if it's a good idea that "anyone" can contribute just as easy as anyone else, not because it's elitist but because people with "real" skills shouldn't be discounted.
There's always going to be class distinctions, too, especially within smaller communities. Right now, a forum moderator with a little know-how can basically trace the activities of the IP addresses of everyone who visits his/her site- where they're from and what pages they've gone to earlier. Sounds pretty creepy to me! I guess the playing field of the internet can be just as topographic as any.