First of all, I wanted to confess that I am a traitor: I printed out Benkler (on scrap paper) because I know I can't read online. Period.
Aside from my traitor-hood, I also wanted to mention that I like the overall message Benkler suggests: that ideology, society, and culture is changing because of the internet, and we should take that into account. As Marla so eloquently reminds us, every small decision we make (or do not make) online gets multiplied, and has the potential for greater effect.
But to me, this post needs to address two things that keep nagging at me. The first is a leftover from last week's class when we did a rhetorical analysis of Weinberger's book. While Benkler seems to be writing for a different audience -- not hurried (and harried) businessmen on their way somewhere -- he still seems to be "selling" something. Perhaps "selling" isn't the best word here. In any case, I think Benkler is smart to tout the social and cultural benefits of the internet, because in a lot of academic circles it has a bad rap. Keeping this in mind, I think we need to read his utopian gestures with the proverbial grain of salt; if the audience is convinced that the internet is a passive, mind-draining, "popular" activity (and therefore NOT redolent of active engagement with society or intellectual pursuits), then in order for Benkler to make his argument he must approach it from this somewhat problematic perspective.
Second, I want to discuss Benkler's use of the word "collaboration" in the book. It seems to me that he is almost redefining it, since internet collaboration is not "in-person" or the result of direct conversation. He writes,
"...hundreds of independent producers of information, acting for reasons ranging from hobby and fun to work and sales, produce information, independently and at widely varying costs, related to what you were looking for. They all coexist without knowing of each other, most of them without thinking or planning on serving you in particular, or even a class of user like you" (33). Later on down the page, he follows with
"Wikipedia, a multilingual encyclopedia coauthored by fifty thousand volunteers, is one particularly effective example of many such enterprises" (33).
Is what Benkler discusses here "collaboration"? If it is, it is surely a different kind -- for whenever I collaborate on something, the person is usually right there, or at least aware that we are collaborating, and can offer help from a distance. Is Wikipedia really "coauthored", then? What does it mean to "coauthor" or "collaborate" in the Internet society? If I borrow information from a source and use it for my own connections -- as Weinberger suggests -- am I really collaborating? Do we say this of books and physical texts I might use, too? That is, if I write a paper about Weinberger, I don't think anyone would say I collaborated with him, though Bakhtinians out there would suggest that he made his mark on my mind.
This is already too long, so I'll stop now.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I don't think that your examples of non-collaboration would be defined as collaboration by Benkler, or anyone who does do collaborative work online, Sarah. Wikipedia, and other sites like Craftster.org and even Second Life, etc, are built with the express purpose that people who want to contribute to them will do so. By participating in the Open Office or Linux projects, people do know that they are collaborating and helping each other reach a common goal. People who add to those projects do so with the understanding that they are contributing to a group project, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedia, a large discussion and "pattern" forum for indie crafters, an immersive online world, etc. While the users who contribute to these sites may or may not have ever met each other, participation is based on the premise that what's done is not only for the maker but for the community to enjoy. (Your example of borrowing information seems to assume that the party you borrow it from didn't actually put it there for collaborative purposes.)
Is Benkler's a "new" form of collaboration? Maybe. It's certainly easier to do this kind of collaboration (aka without having met each other before, identifying a common need through conversation and having meetings over coffee somewhere to talk about how the project is going) using networked computers, but I don't think that the nature of the collaboration is inherently different.
Additionally, there are lots of smaller-scale projects that do include what might be more familiar kinds of collaboration: these are what Benkler might call "local" or "regional" websites, which might be used among friends (who may have initially met either in "real life" or simply through their online interactions) or among people who haven't "met" each other but who use common-interest websites or online forums.
Sarah, I love that you brought up this new idea of collaboration. I absolutely agree that he's describing Collaboration 2.0, if you will. While I completely agree with Kristi's point that the goal remains basically the same, I also agree with you that this is a new type of collaboration.
Unlike face-to-face interaction, online interaction differs considerably. The means (and type) of communication between team members differs, which is limiting; the nonverbal cues one normally might pick up on during face-to-face interaction is absent; etc.
While Collaboration 2.0 (I love making up words - just like many of the other authors we've read so far!) offers a convenience traditional collaboration might be lacking, I feel as if contributors would approach it differently than they would a "traditional" collaboration.
That's just my two cents :)
I might be misinterpreting this, but I disagree with Krist's statement that the people who use these sites know their creator's intent as a given. I would disagree. I think that they were created with that in mind, but I do not believe that everyone who visits believes they are there to collaborate and reach a higher goal. I have 140 students, most of whom don't even realize that Wikipedia is user edited. Most think it is just an online Brittanica. Additionally, one of the problems of the interface of the Internet is that people lose their sense of the largeness of the www. They forget that what they are doing is observable and traceable by others. They forget that there are predators out there, very willing to "collaborate," if you will. One of the reasons I was most interested in this class is that I wanted to discuss that chasm between what the Internet is and what it "looks like" to many who use it, especially naive sixteen year olds.
Hmm...
Initially, I was going to write, "Yay Kristi! I completely agree!" But, then, after reading Korie's comments I am reconsidering my "Yay Krist!" or at least my "I agree!". And I do, agree, I mean, to some extent. Collaboration/community is important even in an online world; although, ideally one would be collaborating with many more people outside of his or her online world. I think, maybe, collaboration becomes key in the academic internet world. Meaning, perhaps those in academia are so looking for a community, and not finding one necessarily within the places of education in which they are currently working, that they look to outside sources. Or not "outside" as in "other" but, more or different. And, this is good!
But then there is also the idea that "...the people who show up are the right people" (Lamott, 65), and so we should be seekint to try to work with those around us who, while they may have crazy hair-brained ideas, just might spark our imagination and intellect one step further than someone who can choose to collaborate, but who is ultimately on the same (proverbial) page.
Make sense?
Post a Comment