No more lemons: Reviews and DIY empower the consumer

An exciting cross over between virtual and physical projects is occurring due to new produsage business models. According to Bruns, produsage is being translated from the confinements of the informational, intangible, digital realm to the produsage of physical products. As Eric Von Hippel notes in his book Democratizing Innovation, the design phase of physical products is made up of an informational layer such as blue prints, images, text or software. Harnessing this realization, it is becoming increasingly common for industry to allow online communities to virtually design their products in this informational phase. In doing so, producers tap into the very wants and needs of their consumers and essentially are designing tailor-made products for their target markets.

For example, within the large lucrative market of online craft, spoonflower is a site that adopts the third party consumer and allows them to design and personally customise their own fabric patterns. Another example is Stylehive , a social shopping community which tracks the trends in fashion, beauty, design, home, technology and travel. Products under these categories are sorted via communal evaluation, where the most popular items will rise to the top. This tells consumers “what’s hot” and producers how to best meet their client’s tastes – it’s a win-win situation.

Similarly, the reverse is also possible in turning permanent products into a more temporary form. There are sites available that give users the power to communicate how to access, make the best use of, review, sell and buy physical products. Additional layers of information are being added to the communal knowledge of a product every time users contribute such comments and reviews. It is argued that these opinions from other users are viewed as more valuable and reliable then descriptions from industry, which people have grown increasingly skeptical of due to the money-making mentality of commercial business. The perfect example is Epinions, where anyone can write reviews on millions of products and services. Their tagline is “unbiased reviews by real people”.

Trendwatching, a site designed to report on emerging consumer trends, believes that due to this increased trust in peer review, experienced consumers known as ‘trysumers’, are becoming more confident and daring in how they consumer online products are emerging. In the Top 5 consumer trends for 2007, Trendwatching states “reviews on anything, anytime remove the risk of buying a lemon”. This demonstrates that in the future, the producer will have less control of creating the way their product is perceived, as social shopping communities operate more interdependently through communal evaluation and shared experience of products.

Overall, it can be seen that produsage is becoming an advantageous platform for both industry and consumers. In particular, the consumer in the design and evaluation of products is growing more and more powerful in an environment where the line between physical and intangible is fading fast. In this new arena however, I believe that although DIY consumers may diminish the role of traditional producers, they will never completely make their service redundant. People will still require those with the capabilities and specialized skills to physically make the products. Whether this is mass-produced expert production or a hand-made bottom up approach to production is irrelevant to the end result for the all-powerful consumer.

The tip of the iceberg: Experts struggle for recognition in a sea of Amateurs

In folksonomically organised knowledge spaces such as Wikipedia, there is an increasing struggle from experts to be acknowledged and accredited. With the rise of the folk, the model of produsage demonstrates that collaborative sites somewhat flatten hierarchical structures. The reputation of an expert is undermined within these environments because there is no respect for those who have formulated original thought from extensive professional research. Bruns states that ‘Pro-Ams’ have blurred the lines between amateurs and professionals, and enthusiasts and experts. As a result, there is significant debate surrounding the role of the expert, raising questions such as how is an expert defined and distinguished? Can a balance of ‘expert’ and ‘amateur’ knowledge be achieved?

At the helm of one side of the argument, is the co-founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger who’s growing disenchantment with his site is in direct response to the conflict arising in the Pro-Am paradigm. Sanger believes that “there are special requirements of nearly every serious community, best served by relevant experts” including the ability to write with credibility and perceived reliability. However, Sanger fails to provide solutions for recognizing experts that emerge from popular and enthusiast culture. It may be possible to require registered users to provide scholarly credentials and disciplinary expertise in “science type” areas such as Sanger has established in Citizendium. However, in this environment how can “science fiction type” Star Wars fanatics demonstrate their specific expertise? Secondly, where does a university student like myself, fall along the continuum of expertise in my field of public relations?  In my belief, the renewed focus in experts in Citizendium is damaging to the community involvement of produsage models as demonstrated by the failure of Wikipedia’s predecessor, Nupedia.

Additionally, Bruns reveals that experts form only the tip of the “iceberg of human knowledge”. This demonstrates the need for a balanced approach in the continuum from ‘Pros’ to ‘Ams’. It is acknowledged that experts do play a paramount role within produsage communities however, it is also noted that this knowledge is specialised and usually limited to a core field. These core areas of expertise are revealed to be only the peaks of the iceberg, with the metaphorical waterline set by the limitations of expert’s individual capabilities. Here, the value of communal knowledge and collaborative intelligence in produsage is emphasised again. In order to accumulate the vast bulk of the knowledge iceberg that lies beneath the surface, sites must embrace a community-based and folksonomic model that encapsulates the principles of produsage.

Another perspective is that like the self-healing quality derived from communal evaluation, a self-correcting trust can be placed in communities to balance its knowledge from experts and amateurs. This theory relies on the motivations of experts to make changes to specialised expertise areas and amateurs to generally steer clear of contributing to such topics. It is important to note however, that Wikipedia already attempt to guide a shared platform of experts and amateurs for their respectively appropriate roles with principles such as Verifiability and No Original Research that regulate the representations of knowledge.

In order to uncover the entire iceberg of human knowledge, conflict between experts and amateurs needs to be set aside to achieve balance.

Wikipedia: Does Transparency necessitate Trust?

Although it was not the first online encyclopedia, Will Richardson and numerous other scholars identify Wikipedia as “the poster child for the collaborative construction of knowledge and truth that the new, interactive Web facilitates”. It is interesting that the construction of “truth” is highlighted, as there is usually criticism and skepticism surrounding the quality of information on Wikipedia, its credibility and reliability, and most basically, whether we trust it as true. The very nature of the traditional encyclopedia has back flipped so that “anyone can edit”. This is where fear is generated. The principles of produsage production seem to be what fuels concern and causes rejection of this user-led media because surely information can’t be trusted unless it is produced by professionals? I disagree. This post will argue that Wikipedia and collaborative sites alike are highly valuable resources if tackled with the right approach.

Firstly, one only has to look at the origins of Wikipedia to reveal why the scholarly approach could never achieve the gigantic knowledge bank that numerous individual contributions created. Nupedia, the predecessor of Wikipedia, which aimed to produce online encyclopedia articles written by academics, was a complete and utter failure. Due to an arduous review process, after 18 months and $250,000, creator Jimmy Wales said they had only produced 12 articles. Comparatively, Wikipedia has created millions of pages because it relies on the inherent knowledge that online communities already hold. Long before the creation of Wikipedia, they have been stored elsewhere undergoing the processes of communal evaluation. Wikipedia simply formed another platform where this information can be stored and shared. Sure, the information is not always academic or reviewed, however the way Wikipedia has harnessed the potential of produsage demonstrates the value in the sum of individual efforts. Further, a controversial study by Nature in 2005 systematically compared a set of scientific entries from Wikipedia and Britannica, and found a similar rate of error between them. Perhaps, the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.

Secondly, traditional means of encyclopedia production also reveal issues in comparison. Encyclopedias are rigid and unquestionable. With the rapid occurrence of world tragedies and events, and advancements in Internet technologies, the traditional encyclopedia would be out-of-date before the ink dried on its pages. On the other hand, Roy Rosenzweig describes the capability of Wikipedia to continuously revise itself as a “self-healing quality”.

The matter of the transparency of Wikipedia is an important consideration for its defence. The Wiki pages are visible both in front of and behind the scenes.  Bruns details that the “Page history” function allows users to compare previous edits to examine the geneis of its present contents. Secondly, the “Discussion function” provides a space for a relatively strict and temporary structured conversation about the page development process and related issues such as “suggestions of deletion”. The user is invited inside to sniff out any discrepancies that they feel may affect the quality of information. Therefore, it is the responsibility of Wikipedians to make their own judgements and decisions whether to trust the source.

The power of the Average Joe: Citizen Journalism and its impact on industry

No one expected or predicted the tragic advents that occurred on September 11. However, due to the number of ordinary citizens that were eyewitnesses to the attacks, who shared their stories online and captured images and live footage, that day was recorded and broadcast around the world. For example, live footage entitled “September 11, What we saw” was captured on camera by an everyday citizen from a unique perspective of overlooking the north tower from a building 500 yards away, 36 floors high.

Similarly, it was not professional journalists that first delivered accounts of Iraq, or photos from camera phones of the London bombings to the people, it was the result of the average joes who were in the right place at the right time equip with basic technology. Known as citizen journalism, this phenomenon has caused quite a stir. The boundaries of professional journalism have been broken down and people are no longer required to be experts to make news. This highlights citizen journalism as one form of produsage.

Citizen journalism or participatory journalism has developed over time where the first cases were simply reactive to the news whereas now are active in creating and shaping the news.  It works freely from the commercial constraints of ethics, objectivity, censorship, agenda, limited broadcast space, and the gatekeeping process. Anderson, Dardenne and Killenberg describe this new environment as “liberating, spontaneous, interactive, public-orientated, and a public-coauthored network of nearly limitless news and information venues”.

But what does this mean for traditional journalists? Bruns details that professional journalists can no longer control the newsflow because the internet allows audiences to actively seek the direct information, free from the conventional, gatekept news production process. If people are unsatisfied with the version of events that journalists disclose, they can source other means of information such as sites created for citizen journalism. Ohmynews is an example of a citizen journalism platform that believes every citizen is a reporter.

Another threat to mainstream journalism is that as demonstrated earlier in the citizen journalism from September 11, being the first on the scene to take live accounts is preferable to regurgitating second-hand events. With the majority of people becoming tech-savvy and almost always within reach of modern mobile phones that allow pictures and video footage, professional journalists are somewhat outnumbered. It is no longer a case of who you are, but where you are.

This impact on traditional journalism begs the question; will citizen journalism continue to be described as a crutch and supplement to industrial journalism or will it take over all together? Another concern that arises is that in this uncontrolled environment, who will ensure that there is credibility of information and ethical delivery of news?

Personally, I think it is important that traditional journalism continues to be the main source of public information. However, it must create a mutual beneficial and respectful relationship with citizen journalism. Bruns supports this idea in stating “the change and transformation of traditional journalism towards a greater embrace of and partnership with produsage-based citizen journalism must surely be seen as inevitable.”

Wherever there is news, there is potential to participate in citizen journalism. Never underestimate the power of the average joe.

From consumers, to users, to the hive: Exploring the evolution of user content creation

Facilitated by the backdrop of Web2.0, the entire dynamics of Internet usage to create content and communicate within communities have shifted and evolved dramatically from the traditional assumptions of producers, products and production. This entry will discuss these changes and professional efforts to define concepts and principles surrounding this phenomenon. It will further focus on communal and collaborative contribution to question the quality and value of user-led sites.

Traditionally, the concept of production was centred around the industrial creation of physical goods which entailed widely separate links of producers to distributors to consumers in the industrial production value chain. The hierarchical power here lay with the producers, where Von Hippel described the only role of consumers as ‘having needs’. As producers became more responsive to consumer needs, cyclical feedback evolved, however, it was somewhat limited because power imbalances still remained.

Alvin Toffler introduced an intermediately stage of ‘prosumption’, an often misused concept which actually refers to the development of even more advanced consumption skills by consumers to professional standards (prosumers), rather than the producer and consumer shift of balance. Axel Bruns provides a solution with his concept of ‘produsage’. In the book Blogs, wikipedia, second life and beyond, he introduces this term designed to highlight that in the communities that engage in collaborative creation of knowledge, the distinction between a consumer and producer has been blurred. The ‘produser’ actively creates content and shares an equal platform of power or entirely replaces the traditional producer. Trendwatching describes these produsers as Generation C, where C stands for Content, creativity, casual collapse, control and celebrity. Participants are no longer passive consumers and instead are now active users and content contributors.

User-led content creation is enabled by the digital environment in which it thrives. For example, Tim O’Reilly believes that the rules of Web2.0 are inclusive of open participation and engagement practices where sites develop in a freely accessible digital space from a number of small contributions from a number of users. This denotes a produsage environment such as in blogs, Wikipedia, Facebook, Delicious, OurMedia and Youtube, which encourages the building of collaborate intelligence.

The ‘hive mind’ by J.C. Herz, draws on the idea that like insects, users swarm around information that is of value and interest to the community. It is a powerful process that enables each user to create a digital trail that paves the way for new participants and therefore allowing users to affect one another’s experiences. For example, when a user edits or updates a Wikipedia page, the next user may benefit or will unknowingly be in some way affected by these changes. Similarly, if a user bookmarks, tags or hyperlinks to further sources, the next user may follow this thread that saves them from sorting and searching for the information firsthand. It demonstrates that although individual contributions may be small, the value of the overall hive mind can exceed the sum of each part. Therefore, it can be argued that high quality in user-led sites can be easily achieved, as the information is collaborated from numerous contributions, each fulfilling part of the overall workload. Like bees to a field of flowers, the communal contributions of users show the way to the juiciest and most valuable information.

Indeed the journey from consumer to user to the hive has been long, however is far from over and is likely to continue to evolve in the foreseeable future.

Testing, testing

1,2,3 edit

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!