My talk about media coverage and discourse on youth, youtube and risks at the e-Youth conference in Antwerp, Belgium, May 28th 2010.
Archive for May 2010
5 black boxes
This is a picture of the gadgets that I carry around on a normal day. The Fujitsu P8110 Lifebook, the Creative VADO HD, the htc Desire Android, a 120GB iPod Classic, and Sony’s mp3 IC Recorder. There is of course substantial overlap between what these units can do. Three of them can record video, two of them can take photos, four of them can play music, two of them are 3G compliant etc. Still, due to their individual unique selling points and to battery life I feel that I need them all. Chris Stephenson wrote on his blog that “there’s a very compelling theory that at some point all our media will be accessed through a single black box. a box that will deliver our TV, gaming, email, movies and web surfing all to one (or multiple) screens through a single access point. it’s very compelling because it sits so neatly with our concept of convergence; with the idea that technology will be developed (and indeed already exists) to deliver a range of content to our TV screen. the much-anticipated PS3 not only does games, but does HD DVD and can wirelessly access the internet to boot. Sony doing internet, Microsoft doing TV etc. convergence right?”.
However, as Henry Jenkins states in Convergence Culture, there is no historic evidence that such a black box would function socially and culturally:
“I am seeing more and more black boxes. There are my VCR, my digital cable box, my DVD player, my digital recorder, my sound system, and my two games systems, not to mention a huge mound of videotapes, DVDs and CDs, game cartridges and controllers, sitting atop, laying alongside, toppling over the edge of my television system”.
Critical Studies in Peer Production
Since the VIRT3C conference in Hull earlier this spring, I am involved with an exciting group of people in the launch of a new scholarly online journal focused on collaboration and conflict in relation to commons-based production. I am a member of the scientific committee of this journal, for which a call for submissions is out now.
Critical Studies in Peer Production (CSPP) seeks high-quality contributions from researchers and practitioners of peer production. We understand peer production as a mode of commons-based and oriented production in which participation is voluntary and predicated on the self-selection of tasks. Notable examples are the collaborative development of Free Software projects and of the Wikipedia online encyclopedia. Through the analysis of the forms, operations, and contradictions of peer producing communities in contemporary capitalist society, the journal aims to open up new perspectives on the implications of peer production for social change. Topics of interest include, but are not limited to: the political economy of peer production; peer production and expertise; critical theory and peer production; peer production and exchange; peer production and social movements; peer production as an alternative to capitalism; peer production and capitalist cooptation; governance in peer projects; peer production and ethics; the peer production of hardware; peer production and feminism; peer production, industry and ecology.
All contributions will be peer reviewed. Contributors are invited to follow the Harvard citation style and to submit papers using free software such as Open Office. Once papers have been accepted, it is the author’s responsibility to format them in accordance with our specifications. The journal welcomes submissions based on interdisciplinary approaches including information and computer sciences, law, economics, geography, history, communications, and sociology.
Our approach to peer reviewing is informed by Whitworth and Friedman’s (2009, part 1; part 2) criticism of current academic publishing as a form of competitive economics in which “scarcity reflects demand, so high journal rejection rates become quality indicators”. This self-reinforcing system where journals that reject more attract more results in a situation where “avoiding faults becomes more important than new ideas. Wrongly accepting a paper with a fault gives reputation consequences, while wrongly rejecting a useful paper leaves no evidence”. Whitworth and Friedman propose an alternative evaluation system:
1. higher rating discrimination: a many-point scale, not just accept-reject
2. more submissions to be rated: rate all
3. more people to rate: community involvement
4. different ways of rating: formal review vs. informal use ratings.
Our process is also informed by Toni Prug’s ideas about community reviewing: all submission proposals must be made on our open email list. Prospective authors will then be told by the peer review community whether their proposal is appropriate for the journal and if any additional key elements are missing. Once authors have completed a full submission, they submit it to the editor who will assign it to three reviewers. Reviewers are encouraged to communicate with one another. Reviewers will provide any necessary recommendations for improvement.
