skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The expression ‘Web 2.0’ sounds like some kind of Internet update package that users download in order to keep up to date with technology. However, what many people do not realise is that Web 2.0 is not a technical update, easily downloaded with the click of a button, but a term coined to describe the gradual change in how the Internet is now being used. Web 2.0 largely concerns the rise of the ‘produser’ and their growing participation in the virtual world. This is in stark comparison to Web 1.0, which drew distinct lines between professional producers and consumers.
As identified by Joe in Darren Barefoot’s blog, Web 1.0 was all about reading, companies, home pages, lectures, content and advertising. On the contrast, he sees Web 2.0 as regarding writing, communities, peer-to-peer, web services, blogs, conversation, and amateur opinion rather than professional information. This sits well with Bruns’ description of Web 2.0 as “involving large communities of users, who act without an all-controlling, coordinating hierarchy …” (Bruns, p1). Web 2.0 also allow for content creators and consumers (commonly referred to as produsers) to “operate along lines which are fluid, flexible, heterarchical and organised ad hoc as required by the ongoing process of development…” (Bruns, p1).
It is this flexibility and growing reception of non-professional opinion and conversation that has led to the greater participation of individual citizens in the virtual world. Consumers now demand the right to actively take part in and question the world around them, no matter their level of expertise on the given subject area.
Accordingly, businesses have had to change the way they operate, paying particular consideration to Web 2.0 and its economic consequences. Various industries have had to seek out new business models that allow for them to “harness the content created by [online] communities … for their own purposes … rather than hindering the creation and distribution of content created” (Bruns, 4). In order to survive in the new economy, businesses need to embrace and engage with the growing number of produsers, rather than to restrain them.
Reference
Bruns, Dr Axel. “Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life and Beyond: From Production to Produsage”. (http://produsage.org/files/Produsage%20-%20Introduction.pdf). (ch 1).
As we continue to move into a user-led future, it appears that democratic processes, which have for long been on the decline, may be revitalised through the produsage process and citizen journalism. By allowing for the greater participation of citizens and collaborative projects, the information-age is resurrecting “democratic processes by levelling the roles and turning citizens into active produsers of democracy once again” (Bruns(1), p6).
Running parallel to the concept of produsage and the produser is citizen journalism. Acting as a kind of ‘collaborative filter’, citizen journalism builds on, critiques, analyses and debates the reports and information presented by mainstream journalistic news organizations (Bruns(1), p2). After sifting through the large quantities of available online information, produsers identify the most important, appropriate or practical information for their purpose (or their online community’s purpose) (Bruns(1), p2). As a result, citizens are more informed and have greater control over the type of information they choose to consume.
Furthermore, the rise of networked media has enabled consumers to more readily engage with and respond to content concerning politics. Consequently, politics has begun “shifting from an industrial production to an informational produsage model” (Bruns(2), p9). The traditional model of politics in which politicians, media advisors and journalists produced political content and then distributed it to the masses through different media outlets “is no longer sustainable” (Bruns(2), p9). Audiences in the information-age demand the right to actively participate beyond the ballot box in their country’s own politics.
This demand has become visible in the “increasing role of blogs and citizen journalism in recent US elections” (Bruns(1), p6). 2004 Democrat candidate, Howard Dean, generated a considerable public following during the US primary elections through his blog campaign. Supporters of Dean prodused the campaign blog as much as media advisors produced it (Bruns(2), p9). This clearly illustrates the potential and growing ability of produsage as a means of challenging traditional politics models and revitalising democratic processes.
Similarly, traditional consumers have taken a more active approach in networked environments through their opposition to the war in Iraq and their positive response to online charity appeals like ‘Make Poverty History’ (Bruns(2), p9). According to Bruns, “… this newfound enthusiasm for making an active contribution to the common good can also translate to a reinvigoration of political processes” (Bruns(2), p9).
With public participation and collaborative projects continuing to grow in the informational-age, citizens now have a greater capability to exercise their democratic freedom and contribute more than ever to politics in their country.
References
(1)Bruns, Dr Axel. "Produsage: Towards a Broader Framework for User-Led Content Creation". (http://produsage.org/files/Produsage%20(Creativity%20and%20Cognition%202007).pdf). (pp.1 – 6).
(2) Bruns, Dr Axel. "The Future Is User-Led: The Path towards Widespread Produsage." (http://produsage.org/files/The%20Future%20Is%20User-Led%20(PerthDAC%202007).pdf (pp.1 – 9).
Technology rules our lives. Most of us can’t function without our mobile phone. Some of us can’t even bare the thought of going a day without Facebook. So what would life be like without the Internet? For many people around the globe, this question is irrelevant, as the Internet still remains a distant dream.
Although the Internet has proven its capacity to serve as an empowering tool for minority groups, it also has the power to divide and alienate huge population groups (Nielsen, 2006). In reality, certain parts of the world will significantly benefit from the informational age, whereas other parts of the population will fall further behind. This is a result of a number of economic, usability and empowerment factors (Nielsen, 2006).
The cost of owning a computer is no longer an issue in areas like Australia, parts of Asia, Europe and North America, where most homes have more than one computer, laptop or mobile phone with working Internet access. However, in poorer developing countries the average citizen is unlikely to even own a computer for at least another twenty years (Nielsen, 2006). This economic divide severely restricts the Internet’s potential to benefit a large portion of the population.
Also adding to the digital divide is the complexity of computing technology. “Technology remains so complicated that many people could not use a computer, even if they got one for free”, as most of the accessible services are too difficult understand (Nielsen, 2006). Whilst usability continues to improve for higher-end users, senior citizens and those with low literacy skills (a massive 40 percent of the population) are left behind as few websites follow guidelines for writing for low-literacy users (Nielsen, 2006). This means that despite having physical access to a computer and the Internet, a large share of the population cannot properly engage with and benefit from the technology.
With regard to the empowerment divide, statistics have shown that there is a great deal of inequality when it comes to our participation. Ninety percent of Internet users do not contribute in social networking systems. Of the ten percent that does contribute, only one percent accounts for the majority of contributions (nine percent only contributing sporadically) (Nielsen, 2006). This clearly demonstrates the fact that many users do not know how to make full use of the Internet. Furthermore, their attention “can be sold off like a sheep to slaughter, as indicated by deals where search engines pay computer vendors millions of dollars to be the default setting on shipping PCs” (Nielsen, 2006). By not exploring various options such as these, less-skilled users are again being left behind. In the future, the Internet needs to become more accommodating and considerate of low-literacy users so we can move forward together.
ReferenceNielsen, Jakob (2006). “Digital Divide: The Three Stages”. URL: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/digital-divide.html (accessed 10 May 2008).
The emergence of a convergence culture and the growing number of online participants has significantly changed the way in which content is now produced. In the virtual world, “artefacts generated are no longer products in a traditional sense” (Bruns(1), p3). Rather, content creation has become a collaborative “act of maintenance and construction” (Bruns, 2007), meaning ‘products’ are “always unfinished, and continually under development” (Bruns(1), p3).
This increased involvement of users in content creation is generating headaches for the legal community. In particular, intellectual property tracking has become an issue as legislation struggles to cover digital content, “which does not obey the laws of traditional physics (Bruns(2), p8). Our copyright laws also have no means of dealing with communal content ownership. The “current model … operates through a difficult meshing of individually held copyright in individual contributions using complex contracts, or through the artifice of creating ‘legal persons’ (companies, organizations) who hold copyrights on behalf of groups of creative practitioners” (Bruns(1), p6). Basically, these laws continue to see content production as a one-way street in which content is a finished product, produced by one person or company (Bruns(2), p8).
This backward thinking causes problems when tyring to deal with collaboratively built sites like Wikipedia. At present the online encyclopaedia contains over 2.3 million articles written in English. As anyone can edit these articles, trying to appoint a single originator to each piece is like trying to find a needle in a haystack.
As massively distributed collaborative efforts, like Wikipedia, continue to develop and grow, it is obvious the law must to evolve with them. A new copyright model, “which allows for truly communally held intellectual property” (Bruns(1), p6) needs to come to fruition. These new laws would need to adequately “balance the rights of individual contributors and those of the overall community” (Bruns(2), p8).
As acknowledged by American rapper, MC Lars in his hit song, “Download This Song”, another industry struggling to catch up with technology and the growing number of participatory consumers is the music industry.
Whilst digital formatting and the Internet has significantly transformed the way people produce and consume music, it has also allowed for the growth of illegal downloading. In 2005 alone, almost 20 million songs were illegally downloaded (IFPI Piracy Report 2006, 4). Whilst this statistic may sound damaging, it is important to note that piracy allows for the free and flexible sharing of music within the ‘fair use’ guidelines (guidelines that allow for the use of copyrighted materials for non-commercial and educational uses without the permission of copyright owners) (Gallagher, 2007). Nonetheless, the legal definition of piracy encompasses ‘copyright infringement’. Consequently, digital music listeners are probable pirates as most digital rights management technologies that control access to copyrighted material are stricter in their policies than the ‘fair use’ guidelines (Gallagher, 2007). And, as a result record companies are “sue[ing] little kids [for] downloading hit songs” (MC Lars, “Download This Song”).
In order to attract new prodsuers and keep a hold on existing markets in the future, copyright laws need to be further amended and developed to complement digital industry trends and acknowledge collaborative efforts.
References
(1) Bruns, Dr Axel. "Produsage: Towards a Broader Framework for User-Led Content Creation". (http://produsage.org/files/Produsage%20(Creativity%20and%20Cognition%202007).pdf). (pp.1 – 6).
(2) Bruns, Dr Axel. "The Future Is User-Led: The Path towards Widespread Produsage." (http://produsage.org/files/The%20Future%20Is%20User-Led%20(PerthDAC%202007).pdf (pp.1 – 9).
Bruns, Dr Axel. (2007). “Produsage: A Working Definition”, Produsage.org: Definition, Key Principles, Necessary Preconditions. URL: http://produsage.org/produsage (accessed 10 May, 2008).
Gallagher, R. 2007. Everybody knows that piracy is killing the music business. [Lecture: KCB102].
IFPI (2006) The Recording Industry 2006 Piracy Report: p 4. http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/piracy-report2006.pdf (accessed 9 May, 2008).
As we enter the informational age, networking, collaboration and the growth of user-led content has changed the role of traditional media consumers. There has been a significant power shift from producers of media content, to a wider community of participants who are able to both consume and generate content (Bruns, p3). These new age, online environment participants are commonly referred to as ‘produsers’.
During the industrial age consumers were mainly “seen as passive and isolated ‘end users’ who literally consume[d], or use[d] up, products until they [were] depleted and need[ed] to be replaced with new and updated versions” (Bruns, p3). On the contrary, today’s produsers are not submissive, but actively participate in a variety of online environments. These online environments can range from “ad hoc networks of participation”, like blogosphere, “to more centralized sites of collaborative work, such as Wikipedia” (Bruns, p1). Produsers can also participate in a range of social networking sites, like Facebook and MySpace. What these networked, participatory environments have in common is their ability to “break down the boundaries between producers and consumers … [thus] enabl[ing] all participants to be users, as well as producers of information and knowledge” (Bruns, 2007).
It is through this ongoing process of produsage, that produsers are able to share information, critique, build on, improve and extend existing content (Bruns, p3). Consequently, 
there has been a rapid growth in user-led content and collaborative knowledge. This is so much so that sites like Wikipedia, which is based on collaborative knowledge, threaten major traditional authorities of knowledge, like the Encyclopaedia Britannica (Bruns, p1). Unlike the Encyclopaedia Britannica, Wikipedia’s participants can constantly revise existing content and assist with the development process. Furthermore, Wikipedia “always displays the most recently edited revision of its content”, rather than releasing a monthly or annual issue (which may already be outdated by the time it reaches consumers) (Bruns, p3).
What's more is that produsers can be anyone and their role in the online environment can constantly change. Depending on their level of expertise in any given area, produsers can transform to be leaders, contributors, participants or users of content, depending on the subject (Bruns, p3). For example, in my own blog I am a producer and contributor of information. On the other hand, in a blog about say human movement, I would simply be a user of content and consumer of information, as I have very little to contribute on the subject.
Similarly, the beauty of produsage is that it also allows for the presentation of different perspectives on any one given topic. For instance, a blog about Indigenous Health may contain posts from a government official, a mental health care worker, an Indigenous person, a doctor and a researcher. Each of these posts would present a different view. Consequently someone reading the blog would be better informed and more involved in the subject.
In the future it will be interesting to note how produsage continues to change the way people interact with their media. It is obvious that traditional platforms of knowledge (like paper encyclopaedias) will need to change in order to keep their readership. However, what I think will be most exciting to see is how a more informed population (through collaborative knowledge) will change our society (hopefully for the better).
References
Bruns, Dr Axel. (2007). “Produsage: A Working Definition”, Produsage.org: Definition, Key Principles, Necessary Preconditions. URL: http://produsage.org/produsage (accessed 10 May, 2008).
Bruns, Dr Axel. "Produsage: Towards a Broader Framework for User-Led Content Creation". (http://produsage.org/files/Produsage%20(Creativity%20and%20Cognition%202007).pdf). (pp.1 – 6).
Gone are the days when the humble mobile phone was the size of a brick and its sole purpose was making phone calls. Made possible through the convergence of software, services and hardware, mobile phones have transformed to become our pocket-sized MP3 players, personal navigation systems, digital cameras, gaming consoles and multimedia computers. Today, movies made on mobile phones can even compete for prizes in international film festivals (Jenkins, 2006:4). Likewise, mobile phone users can listen into major concerts across the globe (Jenkins, 2006:4). Furthermore, this piece of technology is always connected, allowing users instant access to an array of single use devices – all in the one nifty gadget.
However, convergence is not just restricted to the integration of old and new media technology. Proven in engendering great technological, industrial, cultural and social change, convergence refers to the “flow of content across multiple media platforms, cooperation between multiple media industries (Jenkins, 2006:2) and the changing relationship and interaction between media producers and media consumers.
More recently, this changing relationship between producers and consumers has given rise to a convergence culture, “where the power of the media producer and the power of the media consumer interact in unpredictable ways” (Jenkins, 2006:2). By lowering production and distribution costs, expanding the range of available delivery platforms, enabling consumers to annotate, appropriate, recirculate and archive media content, new media technology has given consumers a greater ability to participate in an emerging convergence culture (Jenkins, 2006:18).
In 2001, Dino Ignacio, a high school student, gained world wide attention and caused international controversy with a series of “Bert is Evil” images posted on his website. With a little help from Photoshop, Ignacio created images depicting Sesame Street’s character, Bert, engaging in a number of scandalous acts with notorious people (Jenkins, 2006:2). By changing the context of the character’s image, Ignacio was able to transform the way people think about Bert. It is situations like these that clearly exemplify the potential power of the media consumer in the convergence culture.
Whilst corporations still have greater power than the individual consumer, convergence now allows for consumers to “seek out new information and make connections among dispersed media content” (Jenkins, 2006:3). Furthermore, individual media consumers are able to interact with other individual media consumers, consequently facilitating for the sharing of information and collective intelligence.
As individual media consumer becomes more involved and empowered, it will be interesting to see how media companies, governments, mass media empires and businesses react to the convergence culture. Without doubt laws will need to change, governments will need to deregulate and businesses will have to alter the way they function. Furthermore, producers will certainly need to embrace this new participatory culture and change their perception of “what it means to consume media” (Jenkins, 2006:18).
Reference
Jenkins, Henry. (2006). Introduction: “Worship at the Altar of Convergence” in Jenkins, Henry, Convergence culture: When new and old media collide, New York: New York University, pp.1-24.
The expression ‘Web 2.0’ sounds like some kind of Internet update package that users download in order to keep up to date with technology. However, what many people do not realise is that Web 2.0 is not a technical update, easily downloaded with the click of a button, but a term coined to describe the gradual change in how the Internet is now being used. Web 2.0 largely concerns the rise of the ‘produser’ and their growing participation in the virtual world. This is in stark comparison to Web 1.0, which drew distinct lines between professional producers and consumers.
