Archive for May 8th, 2006
Web 2.0 awards Posted by
David Toshin
Web 2.0 at 8:32 pm
Trackback URL:
Trackback
Permalink URL:
Permalink
The SEOmoz’s Web 2.0 Awards
For me, this list highlights just how many Web 2.0 apps there are. The ones mentioned here are only the tip of the iceberg.
May 8th, 2006
From Josie Fraser’s Weblog:
“Terry Freedman has edited a book about the current state of play in education. Things have changed rapidly with the wild-fire spread of the current generation of social software, and the equally speedy ways in which web 2.0 has been seized upon within education to support engaging, exciting and inspiring learning.
After much hard work, Terry has now released the final, freely available version:
Download Coming_of_age_v1-2.pdf
(2MB PDF)
Please do feel free to pass it on to anyone who might be interested in an overview in recent web developments. There’s some great stuff in there - 20 (!!!) chapters on all kinds of web 2.0 goodness, with contributions from Miles Berry, John Bidder, Mechelle De Craene, John Evans, Peter Ford, Terry Freedman (Ed), Steve Lee, Ewan McIntosh, Alan November, Chris Smith, Dai Thomas, David Warlick, and Shawn Wheeler, And if that list of international edu-luminaries still isn’t enough to tempt you into a 2 meg download, why not take a peek at Peter Ford’s index & biog post.”
Technorati Tags: edublogs, education and training research, Open content, Open source
May 8th, 2006
John Naughton - my favourite newspaper IT pundit, has written an article about the problems Microsoft has hit in introducing a new operating system.
“The really interesting comparison,” he says…
…is with Linux, a product of comparable complexity developed by an independent, dispersed community of programmers who communicate mainly over the net. How come they can outperform a stupendously rich company that can afford to employ very smart people and give them all the resources they need?
Here’s a possible answer: complexity. Modern operating systems are staggeringly complicated. In terms of the number of their components, and the richness of the interactions between them, they are far more complex than an Airbus or a jumbo jet.
Microsoft’s problems with Windows may be an indicator that operating systems are getting beyond the capacity of any single organisation to handle them. Whatever other charges might be levelled against Microsoft, technical incompetence isn’t one. If the folks at Redmond can’t do it, maybe it just can’t be done.
Therein may lie the real significance of Open Source. In a perceptive book published in 2004, the social scientist, Steve Weber argued that it’s not Linux per se but the collaborative process by which the software was created that is the real innovation. In those terms, Linux is probably the first truly networked enterprise in history.
Weber likened Open Source production to an earlier process which had a revolutionary impact - Toyota’s production system - which in time transformed the way cars are made everywhere. The Toyota ’system’, in that sense, was not a car, and it was not uniquely Japanese. Similarly, Open Source is not a piece of software, and it is not unique to a group of hackers. It’s a way of building complex things. Microsoft’s struggles with Vista suggest it may be the only way to do operating systems in future.
A problem too jumbo-sized for Bill Gates to solve? John Naughon, Sunday May 7, 2006. The Observer
Technorati Tags: Open source, OSS
May 8th, 2006
IP in an Open Source Society; who is paying who? - FLOSSE Posse:
Interesting post from Teemu Arina.
“The absolutely central thing to understand here is that production logic of the industrial era is changing from centralized (central IP control, centralized production, controlled distribution, few developers) to decentralized (decentralized production, distributed costs, lots of developers, IP in the commons). The driver here is that as you benefit from the commons, you are likely to contribute something back to the commons. This is technically enabled by the licensing, which often requires that you give the next person the same rights you received in the first hand. It’s a gift economy, but driven by economical benefits. It supports free markets by creating an open market, rather than a closed market.”
there are two ways of looking at this. One is to argue that Open Source and Open Content represents ‘merely’ a new form of market organisation under capitalism. And of course for many companies that is what it is - I am unsure mind that IBM licensing under the GPL represents a ‘gift economy’.
On the other hand a lot of the work done on Open Content and Open Source is freely given and is undertaken in peoples own free time. I don’t think think this is part of a capitalist market economy at all. Is this possible under capitalism. It seems to me there have always been instances of meaningful and socially valuable activities undertaken in the period of capitalism but for which no market value as such has been asked for or ascribed.
The big move in the last 10 years or so has been to attempt to place a market or exchange value on everything - including, critically knowledge. It is juts this move which has driven the attempts to extend IPR.
We should celebrate activity which takes place outside the bounds of the market, rather than try to recognise market value. (Incidentally this is why I disagree with those trying to introduce LETS systems - or barter systems for software and content development. these represent a market economy using time as cash - rather than cash itself for exchanging goods. But it is the same thing at the end of the day).
Would welcome any other opinions on this.
Technorati Tags: Open content, Open source, OSS
May 8th, 2006
FQS 7(2) Jaan Valsiner: Open Access and its Social Context: New Colonialism in the Making? (Review Essay):
I have only read the abstract for this paper but am sufficently interested to have printedthe whole paper for weekend reading (curious that I still prefer reading on paper to on-screen for anything but shortish newspaper articles).
However I think there is a very important point made here. I fear that the so called open access movement for journals - which effectively switches who pays - but not the fundamental economic relations - is doing a disservice to the wider open content movement. Scientific content should be freely available and can be through electronic publishing.
Jean Valsiner says: “I claim that what is called “open access” is actually a transformed form of traditional (”closed”) access, and is “open” only by its obviously appealing label. As a re-organizational move of institutionalized kind, it benefits the economically powerful—usually “first world” based—research groups and corporations, and leads to new economic limits for the publication of innovative research emanating from less affluent researchers and laboratories. By shifting the costs of scientific publication from the recipients (journal subscribers) to the authors of published articles, “open access” creates a social scenario of one-sided information flow rather than a new form of “openness” in scholarly communication. By monopolizing the sources of scientific communication the “open access” initiative defeats its stated purpose.”
Technorati Tags: Open content
May 8th, 2006
