What are the differences between commercial production and community produsage?

Produsage is about the extensive collaboration and continuous construction of information from a wide range of users. Users continually add information to sites, this continual adding of information makes the content richer. Youtube is a prime example of this. It is an environment where users become content creators by creating their own videos and then sharing them with the world. Others then respond to these videos by either commenting, rating or posting responses, thus making them active produsers. Wikipedia is also an example of this.

To be continued…

How is Web 2.0 different from Web 1.0?

Sizlopedia -Web 1.0 vs Web 2.0: The Visual Difference

Web 2.0 has revolutionized the way we use and consume the internet. It has brought a generation of “user-led” content creators, collaborating, sharing and distributing content with others (Bruns, 2007). Web 2.0 has been built upon Web 1.0, the internet before 2004 (Wikipedia, 2008). Web 1.0 was generally about a “read-only web” with a webmaster delivering information directly to users in a passive one-way environment (Resumerica, 2006). While in contrast, Web 2.0 is about a “read-write web” allowing users to become active participants, interacting with websites. Not only are they able to read content, but they can write, edit and create their own content.

O’Reilly in Bruns (2007) defines Web 2.0 as “the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the internet as platform and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that platform”. Web 2.0 sites generally encompass a rich, user-friendly interface based upon user-led content production that encourages free expression, openness and collective intelligence (Bruns, 2007). They exist due to the social interactions that occur between people online, such as users contributing, sharing, mixing and editing content in a social network environment (Bruns, 2007).This type of collaboration has lead users to become both a consumer and producer of content, thus a produser (Bruns, 2007). Unlike Web 1.0, people are able to freely move between the roles of a user, consumer, editor and producer of content. In Web 2.0 users become active participants and have the ability to produce, edit, contribute, collaborate and share content with others. Users build upon existing content, they engage with software and allow their content to be reused and recycled with other consumers (Bruns, 2007). This is quite, different to Web 1.0 which is generally about a passive consumer, reading content provided by a webmaster.

Some examples of online social environments are online publishing sites (blogs, open news sites), where users can share their opinions and views with the world, media sharing sites (YouTube, JumpCut) which allow users to create and edit videos and knowledge sites (Wikipedia) where a diverse range of users contribute and collaborate about a certain topic (Bruns, 2007). All of these online environments provide users with immediate feedback, comments and responses to their postings, which can enhance their creations. This collaboration and revising of information from wide range of participants produces collective intelligence, where content becomes is rich, broad and diverse (Bruns, 2007). This differs from web 1.0 where content would be published generally by one individual, presently a single basic view, with no immediate feedback.

The Copacetic blog (2006) states some key differences between Web 2.0 and Web 1.0:

• Web 1.0 was about reading, Web 2.0 is about writing
• Web 1.0 was about companies, Web 2.0 is about communities
• Web 1.0 was about client-server, Web 2.0 is about peer to peer
• Web 1.0 was about HTML, Web 2.0 is about XML
• Web 1.0 was about home pages, Web 2.0 is about blogs
• Web 1.0 was about wires, Web 2.0 is about wireless
• Web 1.0 was about owning, Web 2.0 is about sharing

In conclusion, Web 2.0 differs greatly from Web 1.0, not only is the web about providing users with information, but it is about users responding to this information editing, creating and sharing their own information thus making them active participants within the World Wide Web.

References
Bruns, A. 2007. Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life and Beyond: From Production to Produsage (ch. 1). http://produsage.org/files/ProdusageIntroduction.pdf(accessed April 17, 2008).

Bruns, A. 2007. Produsage: Towards a Broader Framework for User-Led Content Creation." http://produsage.org/files/Produsage(CreativityandCognition2007).pdf (accessed April 17, 2008).

Copacetic. 2006. Web 2.0 vs Web 1.0.
http://joedrumgoole.com/blog/2006/05/29/web-20-vs-web-10/ (accessed April 20, 2008).

Resnumerica. 2006. Web 1.0 Vs Web 2.0.
http://resnumerica.free.fr/nouveau-blog/?2006/09/16/web_10_vs_web_20(accessed April 20, 2008).

Sizlopedia. 2007. Web 1.0 vs Web 2.0: The Visual Difference.
http://www.sizlopedia.com/2007/08/18/web-10-vs-web-20-the-visual-difference/
(accessed April 20, 2008).

Wikipedia. 2008. Web 1.0. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_1.0 (accessed April 17, 2008)

How do online communities organise themselves?

Online communities occur when groups of people come together with common interests to collect, share and discuss information with others. They range from discussion boards, forums, and blogs to sites such as Myspace, Youtube and Facebook.

They exist to make it easier for users to create valuable networks and to find valid information. Users share, learn and create new ideas and thoughts in an almost instant, relaxed environment with a group of similar minded individuals. These communities provide room for niche markets where users from around the world, with matching interests can come together collectively.

These online communities allow users to create their own online identities and form new friendships and relationships in an active participatory culture. In a sense they develop ‘new forms of communities’, which are non-existent in real life, as they may be hard to develop, but have some relevance in the online world. Flew states that people in these online communities are more “cooler to one another”, “more task-oriented” and less “prone to disagreement” then they would be in “face-to-face” groups (2005, 68)

Another reason as why users might find these communities interesting is the users “ability to play with personas”, meaning that users can create their own identities or windows where their personality can be developed and expressed. Users can play many “personas” online, depending on the environment they put themselves into. Users who feel “marginalised or persecuted by society” get the chance to express their views and opinions, which would not necessarily occur in mainstream society (Flew 2005, 69). Therefore, it can be concluded that communities are formed to create new relationships, discussions and share information, but how do all these activities stay relevant?

Online communities need to keep themselves controlled and organised in order to be prosperous. Flew states that design and administration play a key role in keeping a site organised (2005, 70). Administrators need to commit to maintaining a public site by making sure that information is current and up to date in order for users to keep coming back. They should also become hosts to interests groups and present a good environment for diverse discussion. Users should be able to resolve their own disagreements, however administrators should be prepared when to step in when a major crisis occurs (Flew 2005, 70-71). Flew (2005, 70-71) also mentions that software should promote group discussion, old postings should be archived, the site should be “child-friendly” and word length should not be limited to ensure that users get a full, rich and warm experience from the site.

Online communities require development overtime in order to expand and prosper. They need to grow and establish their identity, meaning and relationships with their users. Baym in Flew (2005, 70) states that “as it is these stable patterns of social meaning, manifested through group’s ongoing discourse, that enable participants to imagine themselves as part of a community”. Since online communities are about users sharing, collaborating, creating and discussing information they need to be well organised and developed in order to keep users involved.

Flew, T. 2005. New Media. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Welcome!

Welcome to my KCB201 blog!