Comments on: Saints in the Church of Writely? http://alchemicalmusings.org/2006/03/12/saints-in-the-church-of-writely/ Aurum nostrum non est aurum vulgi Thu, 02 Feb 2012 01:49:55 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Jonah http://alchemicalmusings.org/2006/03/12/saints-in-the-church-of-writely/comment-page-1/#comment-27 Jonah Wed, 05 Apr 2006 05:47:00 +0000 http://alchemicalmusings.org/?p=20#comment-27 I agree. I have been thinking about some of these new services as gateway drugs - they could get people hooked on architecures of participation, autonomy, and participatory democracy. Dare to dream. I agree. I have been thinking about some of these new services as gateway drugs – they could get people hooked on architecures of participation, autonomy, and participatory democracy. Dare to dream.

]]> By: mike http://alchemicalmusings.org/2006/03/12/saints-in-the-church-of-writely/comment-page-1/#comment-26 mike Tue, 04 Apr 2006 20:18:00 +0000 http://alchemicalmusings.org/?p=20#comment-26 In addition to a label it may also be beneficial to have a system of classification or evaluation criteria so that online participants can make relative choices maximizing their “potential freedom” in whatever context they engage in. Like you point out as applications become commodities it may not be as relevant if the underlining “source code” is open as long as you have unrestricted access to your data in an inter-changeable format. But what is an open format without open system to engage that format with. If there was no open source to build off of the cost of altering the mediation of the inter-changeable data format would be prohibitively “expensive”. The logic of capitalism would invariably over influence the types of mediations that would be approved and financially supported. The software helps commodity the information it mediates and the software-itself becomes a commodity. Open source does not completely solve this problem as the freedom it provides is bounded by many real-world conditions and the context in which it’s engaged dictates the relative value of its use. We should not look at open source as inherently more “free” as making alterations setting up your own services and social networks can waste of time or worse it can exacerbate <a HREF="http://metavid.ucsc.edu/blog/?p=7" rel="nofollow">exploitive relationships</A>. Open source should rather be thought of something that can be participated in or used as a tactic in a given context. We should promote systems of classification that help online participants evaluate their context and maximize their potential freedom. This may result in some people using service X for the time being and that’s ok. In addition to a label it may also be beneficial to have a system of classification or evaluation criteria so that online participants can make relative choices maximizing their “potential freedom” in whatever context they engage in. Like you point out as applications become commodities it may not be as relevant if the underlining “source code” is open as long as you have unrestricted access to your data in an inter-changeable format.
But what is an open format without open system to engage that format with. If there was no open source to build off of the cost of altering the mediation of the inter-changeable data format would be prohibitively “expensive”. The logic of capitalism would invariably over influence the types of mediations that would be approved and financially supported.
The software helps commodity the information it mediates and the software-itself becomes a commodity.

Open source does not completely solve this problem as the freedom it provides is bounded by many real-world conditions and the context in which it’s engaged dictates the relative value of its use.

We should not look at open source as inherently more “free” as making alterations setting up your own services and social networks can waste of time or worse it can exacerbate exploitive relationships. Open source should rather be thought of something that can be participated in or used as a tactic in a given context. We should promote systems of classification that help online participants evaluate their context and maximize their potential freedom. This may result in some people using service X for the time being and that’s ok.

]]> By: Jonah http://alchemicalmusings.org/2006/03/12/saints-in-the-church-of-writely/comment-page-1/#comment-25 Jonah Sun, 02 Apr 2006 09:30:00 +0000 http://alchemicalmusings.org/?p=20#comment-25 True dat. It doesn't get much more free than the wikipedia. But that crew is hardcore, and they are the exception rather than the norm. They won't even run java on their server cause its not free enough (although they do run code compiled by gcj). But to start with, how about a label/term/signifier for this kind of freedom? It's not free software or free content - its free data. I want a little smiley button at the bottom of web sites assuring me that I can extract my data from them, in an open format. Granted, when you are collaborating, by definition you are giving up some degree of control/freedom. But, the question of traditional freedom might still apply at the group/organizational level - say, at a university, where an entire class is sharing an environment - is the University in control of the computing, or is a third party? I think the interesting question is whether or not freedom of data might be sufficient to guarantee your freedom, or at least your potential freedom. In an age where applications have become commodities, do I really care if I use pbwiki or wikispaces, as long as I can get my data out and import it into another tool? True dat. It doesn’t get much more free than the wikipedia. But that crew is hardcore, and they are the exception rather than the norm. They won’t even run java on their server cause its not free enough (although they do run code compiled by gcj).

But to start with, how about a label/term/signifier for this kind of freedom? It’s not free software or free content – its free data. I want a little smiley button at the bottom of web sites assuring me that I can extract my data from them, in an open format.

Granted, when you are collaborating, by definition you are giving up some degree of control/freedom. But, the question of traditional freedom might still apply at the group/organizational level – say, at a university, where an entire class is sharing an environment – is the University in control of the computing, or is a third party?

I think the interesting question is whether or not freedom of data might be sufficient to guarantee your freedom, or at least your potential freedom.

In an age where applications have become commodities, do I really care if I use pbwiki or wikispaces, as long as I can get my data out and import it into another tool?

]]> By: mike http://alchemicalmusings.org/2006/03/12/saints-in-the-church-of-writely/comment-page-1/#comment-24 mike Fri, 31 Mar 2006 18:40:00 +0000 http://alchemicalmusings.org/?p=20#comment-24 I think we can draw inspiration from the likes of wikipeida and their collection of projects that publishes both the <a HREF="http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki" rel="nofollow">soucecode</A> and the <a HREF="http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Data_dumps" rel="nofollow">database dumps</A> of the participant generated content. We can look to livejournal as an example of a more liberated version of myspace, and <a HREF="http://de.lirio.us/rubric" rel="nofollow">de.lirio.us</A> as an alternative to del.icio.us. I think part of the solution is choosing to participate in the most open systems available within a given context. We are working on <a HREF="http://metavid.ucsc.edu" rel="nofollow">metavid</A> witch attempts to address these issues in its context. I think we can draw inspiration from the likes of wikipeida and their collection of projects that publishes both the soucecode and the database dumps of the participant generated content. We can look to livejournal as an example of a more liberated version of myspace, and de.lirio.us as an alternative to del.icio.us. I think part of the solution is choosing to participate in the most open systems available within a given context. We are working on metavid witch attempts to address these issues in its context.

]]> By: Jonah http://alchemicalmusings.org/2006/03/12/saints-in-the-church-of-writely/comment-page-1/#comment-23 Jonah Thu, 16 Mar 2006 04:22:00 +0000 http://alchemicalmusings.org/?p=20#comment-23 sigh. http://lists.del.icio.us/pipermail/discuss/2006-March/004988.html sigh.

http://lists.del.icio.us/pipermail/discuss/2006-March/004988.html

]]>