The Handbook of Peer Production. Группа авторов
Читать онлайн книгу.
Wikis are often considered to be the core platform of peer production. This chapter brings together a broad range of research on wikis and Wikipedia from different disciplines. It delineates the central design principles and affordances of wikis and also pays attention to their historical development and embeddedness in society. Wikis are described as content management systems that allow for flexible collaboration without a defined content owner or leader. Users can modify the content and structure of documents directly in their web browser. Edits are usually archived and open to revision. This chapter pays particular attention to the most successful wiki‐based system, the non‐profit, online encyclopedia Wikipedia. As the chapter explains, Wikipedia actually contains a broad range of more or less individual wiki projects and has inspired a plethora of other endeavors, both open source and proprietary. The particular peer production model employed in Wikipedia is elucidated, and in the course also complicated, as is the role of Wikipedia in the contemporary commercial Internet. The chapter concludes by highlighting several tensions emerging from a wiki‐based peer‐production model, between amateurs and experts, human editors and bots, lay knowledge and academic knowledge, and the shaping of trust through external actors.
14 Participatory Cartography: Drones, Countermapping, and Technological Power
Adam Fish
An investigation into participatory cartography – amateur and collaborative mapmaking – exhibits how theories of peer production often neglect how collective collaboration is dependent upon the state and fuels corporate technological development. This chapter investigates four case studies of participatory cartography, using theories of new materialism and technological power to expose the links between volunteerism and capitalism. For example, the participatory mapping project OpenStreetMap and its links to technology companies such as Bytemark and CloudMade, the early days of the US drone hacker network transforming into the for‐profit companies 3DR and DJI, and the problems of inequality related to the Indonesian Dayak community countermapping projects offer vivid examples of how the autonomy of peer production can be limited by elite technological power. Also, the Global Positioning System, the most important technology for participatory mapping, is a highly costly platform financed by the state. The new materialistic approach taken in this chapter emphasizes the entanglements of technology, culture, and politics and the movement of power across these different domains. That peer production is dependent on extant forms of technological power does not extinguish its political potential. On the contrary, the materialism approach invites proponents of peer production to better respond to the inequities associated with elite domination of technological power.
15 P2P Learning
Panayotis Antoniadis & Alekos Pantazis
In this chapter we identify a wide variety of learning projects, platforms, tools, and methodologies which could be characterized as “peer‐to‐peer” and present their main characteristics along three core dimensions (curriculum selection, learning process, and knowledge abstraction). We then discuss how p2p learning processes can be encouraged, facilitated, and supported by digital and physical infrastructures, keeping a critical outlook on the often‐hidden power asymmetries that are always present at the infrastructure level. We pay particular attention to the case of small intentional groups of adult learners, and to four exemplary case studies – two digital platforms and two physical spaces – with similarities and differences, which help us to deconstruct and critically analyze the different dimensions of identified p2p learning.
16 Biohacking
Morgan Meyer
Over the past few years, a plethora of terms have emerged to describe scientific activities in the life sciences that happen outside traditional institutions: biohacking, garage biology, DIY biology, DIY genetics, DIY medicine, DIY science, and so on. These movements have attracted a growing number of enthusiasts, from young students to professional scientists, from artists to aspiring entrepreneurs, from people with no technological background to computer hackers. This chapter reviews and discusses the key literature on the topic. It first provides an overview of the history, and the various practices of DIY biology. Thereafter it offers a few examples of DIY medicine. The chapter then discusses and analyzes some of the key issues of DIY biology: the openness of the movement; what the “yourself” in do‐it‐yourself stands for; and concerns with ethics and governance. The penultimate section of the chapter looks at the economic aspects and the valuations of DIY biology. The conclusion will argue that further academic work could look into the geographies and fragilities/instabilities of DIY biology, as well as its relationship with the public.
17 Makers
Yana Boeva & Peter Troxler
Makers have engaged with different practices of peer production for the last two decades. Given access to electronic prototyping tools, digital fabrication tools, biohacking equipment, as well as different craft techniques and materials, makers exchange their knowledge on‐ and offline signaling bottom‐up processes of design, production, and education. The so‐called “maker movement” would bring about the democratization of technology and user emancipation by its prospect of personal fabrication and peer collaboration. Given the multiplicity of maker identities and what making has achieved, in this chapter, we tentatively define makers as individuals creating idiosyncratic artifacts in the form of most often hard‐ and software fixes to actual problems and challenges. The chapter provides a critical overview of the different cultures of making, their motivations as well as the socio‐technical infrastructures that encourage these forms of peer production. We outline a succinct and incomplete history of making in peer production. The chapter then explores the ways maker rhetoric and its diverse proponents have shaped making’s development and perception across the world. It discusses how the prospects of transforming users into makers and producers as well as the idea of makers representing a global social movement have unfolded since the year zero of making.
18 Blockchain, or, Peer Production Without Guarantees
Pablo Velasco González & Nathaniel Tkacz
This chapter provides an overview on blockchain technology in its relation with peer production. Blockchain refers to an open yet secure distributed ledger that secures a robust workflow, authenticated by mass collaboration. As such, the principles and technologies of blockchain have inspired a range of aspirations and implementation in close relation to the principles of peer production. The chapter locates the emergence of the peer‐production model in relation to the organizational models of hierarchies and markets, and discusses the role and potential of blockchain technology to generate “common good” within a fair distribution of production, while also participating as an extractive model. An overview of different projects, interrogated under the light of modes of production, is offered in the second part of the chapter. These projects distinguish four aspects of blockchain initiatives that offer different readings of what may be a peer within blockchain configurations: peer production, peer‐development, peer‐governance, and peer‐exchange. The hybridity of blockchain‐based projects fluctuates the degree and roles of participation, and complicates a narrow definition of a common. While these and other blockchain‐based projects can then be understood as instances of peer production, they are primarily an opportunity to rethink the emergence of this mode of production and reflect on what it can become.
19 Community Wireless Networks
Gwen Shaffer
This chapter explores the history of community wireless networks (CWNs) through diverse case studies in Europe, Africa and the United States. Mesh networks are a prime example of a peer‐production practice. Anyone willing to place a router on his or her rooftop or window can play a role in helping a mesh network thrive. CWNs emerge for a variety of reasons. For some, a grassroots network is the sole option for Internet connectivity. For individuals concerned about the