Howard Reingold:
A commons (C) is a shared resource that anyone can use. ... The question for the coming decade is whether these domains will retain a strong commons.
Commons foster innovation. Consider the Internet: at its core, its a public good.
The literature of science is also a commons.
Today, the advent of technologies that enable global, mobil, many-to-many, multimedia communication and computation among billions of people -- together with new understanding about collective action -- have brought us to the threshold of a new "cornucopia of the commons," similar to the wealth and knowledge that became available in the wake of the printing press.
(?) I cannot exactly formulate my question on this, yet. But "new understanding" sounds little bit unclear to me.
Understanding Cooperation: how to structure commons, how to protect them, and how to use them for enhancing our collective human intelligence.
In the case of Dean, the new medium is really smart mobs applied to electoral politics.
Our present level of knowledge about the role of cooperation and collective action in human enterprise is scarcely higher than knowledge about disease before the discovery of microorganisms.
Before we can approach the solutions of problems of conflict, cooperation, and governance of an interconnected global world - the "medicine" for social ills, if you will - we need new fundamental knowledge. We need the equivalent of a "biology" of collective action. And for this interdisciplinary understanding to emerge, a new way of thinking across disciplinary boundaries is required.
The technology of collective action provides the infrastructure for its own future evolution. Whether or not the deep understanding of cooperation can be catalyzed to knit together the separate strands of inquiry remains, however, a critical uncertainty. Success likely leads to a scenario of peer-to-peer abundance. failure - which emphasizes control over cooperation - likely leads to political stalemate and stagnant technology.
What is he really talking about? This is where getting more interesting. (1) open source software development, (2) Blogging.
J. D. Lasica talking to Dan Gillmor, Doc Searls, David Winer, Deborah Branscum, Paul Andrews and Glenn Fleishman
weblogs offer a vital, creative outlet for alternative voices.
weblogs: a new source of news.
weblogging - amateur journalism?
not everyone who keeps a journal is a journlaist
institutional media - gatekeepers
journalism: quality control, objectivity, credibility, etc...
what about blogging?
Blogging: addictive, creative and fun.
1, Personality: part of a blod's allure is its unmediated quality. ANTI-EDITING.
"repersonalizing journalism?" or weblogs are "personal journalism"?
2, Instantaneity ANTI-EDITING.
3, Interactivity
(blogging) lets people share opinions in a less judgmental way than when you interact with people in the real world.
weblogs have a self-informing and self correcting system built into it.
writing as part of a conversation. conversations don't have audiences. (markets are a conversation, everything was negotiated.)
4, new structure and format
One overriding appeal: here's a media form that let's you write at any length about any issue you care deeply about.
What about if the tools become more sophisticated, will it be a new kind of journalism?
multi-media, moblogging, stream audio, video etc...
5, Lack of marketing constraints. (Only for people who wants to read, maybe only for yourself.)
and no income!
(but here one can think of the Power Law. )
Collective Blogging vs Journalism
1, collective filtering
2, multiple perspectives.
3, information sharing, exchanging and disseminating
what's interesting here is: not the publication of a first-person journal but the chain of interaction it often ignites.
3, experts knowledge:
indespensable source of niche expertise. The weblog community is basically a whole bunch of expert witnesses who increase their expertise constantly through a sort of reputation engine.
4. reputation engine
no less quality and integrity in being a amateur journalist. there there is more integrity because blogger's writing does not depend on a paycheck.
5, unique architecture (such as slashdot)
the Web gives voices to a lot of alternative points of view. Journlist is to ensure that the voice of the people should be exposed.
'soft journalism": the any-to-any system of talking and sharing rather than the traditional "hard journalism" model of writing that is distributed to the masses. (Doc Searls. )
a weblog can be an authoritative source of information based on community endorsement.
Salon: "farm system for essayists?"
楼下Shirky不是针对社区网志讲的，而Rebecca的那段话也是一样。社区网志就可能保持会话风格，有人“把关”，用技术甚至有时间和人力资源这样做。当然，他们更没有考虑混血儿如Ohmynews。
"What matters is this: Diversity plus freedom of choice creates inequality, and the greater the diversity, the more extreme the inequality. "
"At the head will be webloggers who join the mainstream media (a phrase which seems to mean "media we've gotten used to.") The transformation here is simple - as a blogger's audience grows large, more people read her work than she can possibly read, she can't link to everyone who wants her attention, and she can't answer all her incoming mail or follow up to the comments on her site. The result of these pressures is that she becomes a broadcast outlet, distributing material without participating in conversations about it.
Well, does it have to broadcast? What is Slashdot then?
Meanwhile, the long tail of weblogs with few readers will become conversational "
How about Weblog Journalism? OK, some will say this is oxymoron. (like, Human Rights in China ;-)) Others may say, what do you know about the J word?
They both got their points. So it's a NO.
What if you do not take this "No" as the answer? What's the next step? Where to start, really? Not from the B word either, since you just started blogging two weeks ago.
Back to physics. Why not to start from the Power Law? Even back to Notre Dame, since all things are "inevitably" Linked.
It's all started from the article, Dean Connection on NYT Sunday Magazine last weekend, when you saw Howard Rheingold's name on it. This leads me to the DeanSpace. It stated its goal as following:
"Howard Dean's online grassroots campaigners are more savvy, nimble and numerous than those of any other candidate - our wired ranks now number in the hundreds of thousands and continue to grow. We want to keep that growth accelerating and allow the energy generated online to erupt into real-world campaigning.
We don't think it's too brazen to say we are experimenting with the future of the democratic process. So far Howard Dean's grassroots campaign has exhibited decentralized participation working on a true "town hall" model, yet also operating in a nationally connected and coordinated fashion. We are having surprising and extraordinary results.
But we can still do better. "
Now, this is eActivism. Blogging is an integral part of it. You also noticed Joe Trippi's Perfect Storm.
"This Dean campaign is modeled by the Internet." You did not realize what this mean until you went to his homepage. Just blog the link here and will come back to this later.
Rebecca Blood wrote in her "The Weblog Handbook" , page 19: "weblogs and journalisms are simply different things. What weblogs do is impossible for traditional journalism to reproduce, and what journalism does is impractical to do with a weblog."
"To my mind, news reporting consists of interviewing eyewitnesses and experts, checking facts, writing a original representation of the subject, and editorial review: the reporter researches and writes a story, and his editor ensures that it meets her requirements. Each step is designed to produce a consistant product that is informed by the news agency's standards. Weblogs do none of these things. "
ennn... "bloggers have no gatekeepers. "but you can have one. " they are generally produced in the maintainer's spare time. " this does not have to be the case. "Weblogs can perform a valuable function as critical disseminators of pertinent information. ....Webloggers come from all backgrounds and often provide their readers with highly informed explanations and analysis of news stories that are related to their fields of expertise. " True. And?
What about collaborative sites? Are Slashdot, Kuro5hin and MetaFilter examples of peer-to-peer journalism? These sites," at their best, discussions on these sites vastly clarify the linked articles by offering pointers to additional online material and expert information and analysis by qualified members."
According to Rebecca: "these sites are fascinating examples of information sharing, analysis, and dissemination, and I believe that they may represent a genuinely new way for news to be collected, analyzed, and distributed. It is important to note, however, that the collaborative community structure of these sites is the key to this phenomenon; the weblog format has nothing to do with it. " Are you sure of this? The structure of these sites, including rules certainly has something to do with the dynamics of the community, has it not?
"The weblogs strength is fundamentally tied to its position outside of mainstream media: observing, commenting, and honestly reacting to both current events and the media coverage they generate." Why so? " Weblogs can function as superb digests of online material. " Agreed. No more questions :-)
记得Stuart 的问题是这样的：“如果选择过程一直在发生，那么我们怎样建立一个理论，能够同时包含自组织和选择过程？”据EDGE说，Brian Goodwin曾经提出过自然选择结合结构主义的想法，两者间有关系吗？
中文翻译这样处理好些
Paticipatory Journalism “参与新闻”
Open-Souce Journalism “开源新闻”
P2P Journalism “P2P 新闻”
Interactive Journalism “互动新闻”
Citizen Journalism “公民新闻”
Personal Media 自媒体
Grassroots Reporting 草根报导
但是问题照旧，这些名词后面的内涵呢？
This is Pierre Levy's writing in the prologue of his book "Collective Intelligence":
"The fusion of telecommunications, informatics, the news media, publishing, television, film, and electronic gaming within a unified industry" is not the only aspect, nor perhaps the most important.
What is the most important then? Here is his thinking along this question:
"We are moving from one humanity to another, a humanity that not only remains obscure and indeterminate, but that we refuse to interrogate, that we are still unwilling to acknowledge."
"Hominization, the process of the emergence of the human species, is not over. In fact it seems to be sharply accelerating."
"Bureaucratic hierarchies (based on static forms of writing), media monarchies (surfing the television and media systems), and international economic networks only partially mobilize and coordinate the intelligence, experience, skills, wisdom, and imagination of humanity. For this reason the development of new ways of thinking and negotiating engendered by the growth of genuine forms of collective intelligence becomes particularly urgent. Intellectual technologies are not just another branch of contemporary anthropological change, they are a potential critical zone, its political nexus. There is no reason to belabor this point, however, for we can't reinvent the instruments of communication and collective thought without reinventing democracy, a distributed, active, molecular democracy. "
(Italics are originally in Levy's book. )
Let's pause for a second. "Reinventing democracy", what does exactly Professor Levy mean here?
This is an open question. Do we really want to use the J word at all? But let me just put some of these words out here. They certainly cover different pattern of activities.
Paticipatory Journalism （参与新闻学）
Open-Souce Journalism （开源新闻学）
P2P Journalism （P2P 新闻学）
Interactive Journalism （互动新闻学）
Citizen Journalism （公民新闻学）
Personal Media （自媒体）
Grassroots Reporting (草根报导）
What else?