Hi, please

Tag Archives: Collaboration

New Media and The Digital Natives – Reading Summary

Born Digital – John Palfrey

If you have any interest in Digital Natives – this 1 hour talk is very informative about what a digital native is, and the godfather of this topic, John Palfrey goes into great detail on his definition and how this generation will change the nature of how we see the internet in the future. It is a population of young people who are will impact they we think, work, and function on a day to day basis.

The Digital Natives are a group of people who are comfortable with sharing their daily lives on the net (ie flick, twitter, facebook) and were exposed to these technologies at a very young age. This population is typically born after 1980, have never known life without a computer, TV without a remote control, and never dialed on a rotary phone (not true since I was born after 1980!).

Presentation by John Palfrey – “As part of the Google D.C. Talks series, and in partnership with Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society, Professor John Palfrey offers a sociological portrait of “digital natives” — children who were born into and raised in the digital world — with a particular focus on their conceptions of online privacy.”

There are a few points he clarifies in this video  -

  • This is a POPULATION, not a GENERATION
  • Born after 1980 – because this is when the advent of technology began
  • They have access to these technologies
  • 1 billion who have access (number is low due to digital divide)
  • This is not a DUMMY generation – they are very tech savvy.
  • Young people are INTERACTING, but in a different way – remixed, made in a different way.
  • We must teach digital media literacy

We are Digital Natives – Barrett Lyon

“A new class of person has emerged in the online world: Digital Natives. While living in San Francisco, I also live on the Internet. The Internet is now a place: a two dimensional world that has transcended the web; there is no government, and the citizens are Digital Natives.”

Lyon’s main point is that people are no longer citizens of the United States, or France, but also citizens of the internet. There are specialized groups within these digital natives such as game players, hackers, developers, and the social etiquette that is involved is much different than the physical reality we live in.

Some people choose to define themselves by the activities they take part in on the web – such as social online movements – ie Green Movement, Tea/Coffee Party, which are branches from physical political movements, but these started on the net.

“This scares the crap out of Governments all over the world, because they are ill prepared to deal with these situations. To government regimes that are comfortable asserting their control, this concept is terrifying. How do they counteract the changes online and the movements? Do they need to change their politics, defense, propaganda, and warfare?”

This statement displays that some of these online movements do have an affect on how governments think about the web. Many countries have harsh restrictions on what their citizens can view on the net, ie China, Iran, etc.

The Future of The Internet and How to Stop it – Jonathan Zittrain – Short Summary

This title is actually a book that JZ has wrote which is actually available on amazon if anyone would like to purchase. His main point is that collaboration is key in the survival of a productive internet and cites wikipedia as the main example. The first generation of products that have spear headed the internet have been Tivo, Ipods, and Xboxes, which are tethered appliances, meaning they are using net as their connection to their content/databases.

“The Internet’s current trajectory is one of lost opportunity. Its salvation, Zittrain argues, lies in the hands of its millions of users. Drawing on generative technologies like Wikipedia that have so far survived their own successes, this book shows how to develop new technologies and social structures that allow users to work creatively and collaboratively, participate in solutions, and become true ‘netizens.’

Concluding post: What makes people collaborate online?

The answer is: a mixture of circumstances. Some of them we can’t control, but in general what the leader of the project does or doesn’t, either helps or complicates the process of online collaboration. The key element? Planning.

During the past 3 weeks, I tried to get people to share pictures of interesting situations they encountered in the subway. I tried with a web page, a Facebook Fan page, and a Twitter account. What I got was collaboration from my own social network—friends, or friends of friends submitted some stuff, but always with a short-spanned interest. The next attempt was to tap directly on audiences already interested in the subject—Flickr groups that shared subway pictures. I also added the competition factor—first, the prize was only about prestige: getting voted as the best picture. Then, I finally got an online photography blog interested in publishing the winner picture on their site.

I hoped that would spark interest a bit more, but the fact is that the new collaborations continued to spring from my previous social network and its subsequent effects. That is, when I launched the contest, I got more response from my original Facebook group (which had grown from my own contacts and the “work” I’d previously done on that platform) than from my call for Flickr collaboration. Even though I tapped on the communities that were already interested in the topic (three groups focused on underground transportation photography) and got “professionals” involved by getting them to publish the winning picture on their sites, my guess is that the Flickr group didn’t find enough reasons to take me seriously: I’d never been an active participant in Flickr before, all of my photos are uploaded on Facebook, and I’ve previously “worked” that audience much more.

What did this experience bring? A lot of learning. Not just based on my own travelogue, but I tried to learn from Leslie’s excellent results what had worked in her case as well.

I’d like to share my findings in this video:

YouTube Preview Image

As sidenotes:

Even though the contest wasn’t successful, I did receive some great pictures, and I’d like to share with you the most popular:

metro zocalo

Author: Davii Rangda.  Caption: A night before the “Day of the Dead” in Mexico City.

I will submit the picture to http://lagiraffe.com/, the site that was most interested in publishing the contest pictures.

Special thanks to Leslie for her help and sharing.

New Media and The Digital Natives

We are no longer citizens of different nations, but citizens of the internet…

Required Reading:

  • We Are Digital Natives by Barrett Lyon – “Some Digital Natives are deeply affiliated with all sorts of interests that bring them together organically: Piracy groups, massively multiplayer online games, open source software development, cracking encryption, etc. Others become deeply interested in movements such as Anonymous, the RBN (Russian Business Network), or even terrorist organizations.”
  • The Future of The Internet and How to Stop it by Jonathan Zittrain – “The Internet’s current trajectory is one of lost opportunity. Its salvation, Zittrain argues, lies in the hands of its millions of users. Drawing on generative technologies like Wikipedia that have so far survived their own successes, this book shows how to develop new technologies and social structures that allow users to work creatively and collaboratively, participate in solutions, and become true ‘netizens.’

Recommended Viewing:

  • Born Digital presentation by John Palfrey – “As part of the Google D.C. Talks series, and in partnership with Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society, Professor John Palfrey offers a sociological portrait of “digital natives” — children who were born into and raised in the digital world — with a particular focus on their conceptions of online privacy.”
    (you can play it in the background, it’s not very visual)

Museums and the Web & Public Space and Interfaces

Feeling like picking up our class discussion? Then mark these events in your agenda:

Event #1: Wikipedia, Museums, Libraries, and Access to Art Collections

Wednesday, April 21, 10:00 AM – 11:30 AM, 203 Butler Library,  Morningside Heights Campus, Columbia University.

Monday, April 26, 11:00 am, Columbia Law School, W&J Warren Hall, Room 101.

Event related to the Museums and the Web 2010 conference

Speaker: Liam Wyatt, Vice President of Wikimedia Australia

The availability of art images through Wikimedia and other openly accessible sources is often defined and controlled by license agreements and institutional policies asserted by museums and even libraries that hold the original art collections.  Re-evaluation and critical examination of policies that will enable museums to better contribute to and use Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, and for the Wikimedia community to benefit from the expertise in museums.  This session will provide a close look at rules, guidelines and examples that can be clarified to order to promote active engagement between the keepers of the collections and the scholars, publishers, and other members of the public who seek to benefit from them.

Event #2: The Polytechnic Institute of New York University presents:

WiFi Geographies: Designing Interfaces and Interventions or Collaboration in Place

Thursday, April 22, 2010. 2:00 pm – 3:30 pm, Dibner Building, LC 400, Five MetroTech Center, Brooklyn, New York

Speaker: Laura, Forlano, Phd, Cornell University.

How can we reformat our cities and public spaces – and the architectures and technologies within them — as sites of collaboration and innovation? This presentation examines the ways in which WiFi enables the formation of networks of socio-technical spaces that reconfigure people, work and forms of organizing based on a year-long empirical research project. This presentation will also report on an ongoing collaborative design project, Breakout!  Escape from the Office, which was presented by The Architectural League of New York as part of the Situated Technologies: Toward the Sentient City exhibition

How is the Tea Party Movement using the Internet Age, ie Twitter, to it’s advantage?

Hello Hello, this is your special correspondent reporting to you from the crazy Tea Party Madness, we are throwing tons of tea into the Hudson River, come join us! Just kidding. It was a big week for the Tea Party movement, it was their anniversary on February 27th. Funny how we’ve only started to hear about them in the past few months.

What is the Tea Party?

  • What has made this group unique is the their use of technology in promoting their cause. They have using mostly, Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, and Blogs and also Fox News which has been the only television network that has reported this cause the most.
  • They are a grass roots movement, so most of there collaborating is done online and through viral marketing.

A timeline of events for this week:

2/27 – One year anniversary – groups are preparing for Tea Party Tax Day April 15th.

This week Speaker Pelosi acknowledges the Tea Party movement and their willingness to fight for their cause – via FoxNews

“Glenn Beck thinks the elite media is marginalizing the tea party movement because they think the participants are “just stupid people with pitchforks.” Beck told Fox & Friends that the movement was just going to get “stronger and stronger.” via FoxNew

Also, Arnold Schwarzenegger criticized the TP movement as something that will “twinkle and disappear” yet it is now spreading to the United Kingdom where many are creating events to gather and vent. Many of these reports were done through individual blogs and of course Fox News.

So how are these groups mobilizing?

First it began with a cause, and some believe hatred for their President and his race. (eeeek) Then the word spread as people decided to congregate in churches, groups and started tweeting about the movement. Then the sites went up. One site that I have been watching all week is the Tea Party Patriots.

When logging into their site you see a couple of options which are very important: As you can see in the list below – there is an option to blog, as well as tweet on behalf of the cause.

Join Us
Read How Start a Tea Party
Find a Tea Party Near Me
Download April 15, 2010 Banners
Post/Tweet To the Patriot Feed
Join Discussions
Post to Contract From America
Read Our Blog


Facebook -The Tea Party Patriots Page has over 96,000 fans alone.

Twitter – Tea Party Patriots - 1200 followers

YouTube – TPP Channel - 204 Subscribers

What does this all mean?
I have take one small faction of the Tea Party Movement, the Tea Party Patriots, joined their ranks an looked over the mediums they are using? Now why would they take this route? Maybe they are taking a page out of Obama’s book by starting with something that doesn’t require main stream media to endorse.

The new media age enables users to collaborate (as I mentioned in class last week). The Power Theory that Benkler discusses also is a good example of how these users are interacting. One person sends out a thread to a “not so interested” group of people, but they still skim over it. One of those people decides to broadcast that information, which then creates a domino effect. It is similar to celebrities no longer using publicist but their twitter feeds,


A) It’s cheap

B) It’s unedited

C) More people will pay attention to it if their a humanistic quality (you feel personal closer to the users)

Another analysis I tried – Google – Tea Party – 35.1 million hits today

As you can see below I have also done some twitter stats for you all – for TPPatriot, the one group I am focusing this week’s research on.

The first graph is tweets per day:

The next graph is daily aggregated tweets:

The final is tweet density

To conclude – this is my analysis on TPP Patriots and their use of twitter. They use a twitter feed on their own site called the Patriot Feed where I have been updating my status and reading other users comments.

New Media = Tea Party, without these form of media/technology I don’t believe the Tea party would exist. This week a new movement has erupted called the Coffee Party as well.

If anyone is interested in attending a tea party event with me, please let me know!

Reading Summaries for Week 5

Wealth of Networks: Yochai Benkler


Between 1835 -1850 the cost of starting a mass circulation of a daily paper was $10,000. Currently that number has become $2.5 million. The latter figure you would need to implement a business model . This displays two distinctions between producers and consumers, mainly, largely professional consumers which is based on a main model that the capital used  is supplied by either the state in some countries, or the market in other countries.  The evolution began with marketing in radio, television, satellite, main frame then to personal computing – 150 years later. The first acclaimed super computer was NEC earth simulator in June of 2002 which was then beat by the IBM Gene Blue.  Since this achievement there have been 500 super computers, developed by large scale collaborations and funded by the wealthiest companies.  Benkler’s main point is radical decentralization of capitalization through computation, storage, and communications capacity and networked information economy.  Every individual in this world is connected, roughly 600 million to 1 billion, has the physical capital necessary to make and communicate information knowledge & culture.   This causes a new and different situation since the industrial revolution, most importantly the input into economic  activities of the most advance economies are widely distributed to the population

  • Computation /communication/storage
  • Inside creativity/experience/these cannot be bought

Main point: Moving people from the peripheries of the economy (changing the motivation) into the very core as alternative source of production.


Production without exclusion either from the inputs or outputs, individual or collaborative, it can be commercial or non commercial. Practical capacity is decentralized, commons locates authority to act where capacity resides. (ie Britannica, windows )

The Subset of commons is peer production/sharing, through large scale collaboration. Among human beings it has been mainly done traditional industrial production (state, market, price signals).


  1. For the past 12 yrs  – web server (Apache vs. Microsoft server)
  2. NASA map – take the same exact output – structure the work differently, and you can harness mass amounts of energy to collective tasks. (Groups of images put together, dramatically different if one was done mars click worker.)
  3. Efforts beginning to go into the non commercial/commercial entities. The creation of educational materials through social motivations.
    1. i.      Peer production allows self selection by tapping into diverse insights, capabilities and makes it possible for people to spend a certain amount of time to complete a task . Benkler thinks he is seeing more design levers, task reconstruction in this type of development.
    2. ii.      We also have to factor in self selection and humanization characteristics, similar to Game Theory. People understand that when they are engaging in a human action with others the same exact person with the same exact material pay off structures turns out to behave differently.
    3. iii.      Norm Creation: We map the presence of money on a set of norms, because cooperation has usually been non market. There are discreet places that the introduction of money makes this whole structure different especially in stabilization.
    4. iv.      As long as physical capital is large scale to work effectively and centralized , we are left with centralized firms or non government firms.
    5. v.      With the decentralization and non market we are finding a new form of production called social sharing and exchange.
    6. Important to remember for ECONOMICS: The New opportunities
      1. Finished information and cultural goods – platforms for self expression and self collaboration – as a business opportunity instead of a challenge.
      2. Ex: BBC – Citizen Journalism: Only images the news agency possess were of those in the subways captured by mobile phones.  The BBC nows has a page for (similar to CNN iReport)  people volunteering to capture to news.
      3. Social production is a real fact and not a fad and is sometimes more efficient than market production at times.
      4. POLITICS
        1. i.      People can now do more for and by themselves alone or in loose cooperation with others.  Now you can diversify the things you do with others because you can collaborate in smaller bits.
        2. ii.      Example: New machines for voting (Diebold) – an activist publishes the source code (which is really hard to do).  Diebold complains that the emails are being taken – copy right infringement – but individuals in other campuses have already shared the material and it’s all over the place. The ecology that has been resistant is a combination individual volunteers, legal free software developers, illegal companies for commercial purposes for those doing illegal things in other countries. The combination of legal and illegal creates a robust system that can’t be broken at this point.
        3. iii. The internet democratizes.  – first generation critique
          1. 1. No one will know what anyone says supposedly (aggregation, power law, polarization)
          2. 2. Second Generation Critique – anyone can speak but not everyone can hear you

      What is Power Law distribution?

      1. 1. Sites cluster that are content related  – intensely related communities and cultures start to develop. What determines the agenda is a small number of broadcasters with links and they being to mutual linking, and then those few sites become the broadcast sites. What determines the agenda is that those few sites transmit what those few users believe is what the agenda is..

  1. Cultural public sphere – where we create images and sound, this is a political component, small number of producers to a large audience of passive consumers.
    1. Gold digger – Kanye West  Mashup –this video displays how far borrowing goes to show the relationship between culture and politics.
    2. Common based and peer production are beginning to help
      1. Free and open source software
      2. Open academic publishing
      3. Open source biomedical innovation
      4. Rules can make some actions easier the institutional ecology they want to make the battle of information sharing more costly or subject to permission, the market and society have a persistence desire and pushback to be free and productive.


Excerpts from The Success of Open Source by Steven Weber

Property in a Software Economy

  1. Property and how it underpins the social organization of cooperation and production in a digital era.  Social organization has changed the definition of property (owning something and having legal responsibility and rights) and property in the new media age has changed the idea of social organization itself. The definition of property in an open source environment is basically the right to distribute, not the right to exclude. Open source and political economy  is a system of value creation and a set governance mechanisms.

“In this case it is a governance system that holds together a community of producers around this counter intuitive notion of property rights as distribution. It is also a political economy that taps into a broad range of human motivations and relies on a creative and evolving set of organizational structures to coordinate behavior. “

  1. So how do these people who are not physically connected to each other, manage to come together and build these complex projects for no monetary compensation?
  2. Open Source software and collaboration is a product of the internet culture and has been created by internet technology.

Open source depends on the following:

“It is about computers and software, because the success of open source rests ultimately on computer code, code that people often find more functional, reliable, and faster to evolve than most proprietary software built inside a conventional corporate organization.”

  1. Open source also does not eliminate the idea of profit, capitalism or property rights, companies and open source producers are joining together and creating new types of business models evolving our view of what property and intellectual rights are.
  2. The open source community is not a chaotic or calm place  it has political value. Conflicts of interests do arise within this environment.
    1. The context of the internet revolution  and the demise of the so called “dot com” boom put a damper on the what potentially was left in internet technology. Open source became popular when Linux was gaining attention. (Linux is an operation system for UNIX that is open source).

The open source story opens up a significant set of questions about the economics and sociology of network organization, not just network economics. And it demonstrates the viability of a massively distributed innovation system that stretches the boundaries of conventional notions about limits to the division of labor.

  1. Open source has brought forth several questions facing the sociology of network organizations and demonstrates what abilities open source has in what he calls the “division of labor.” This over laps with Lessig’s case – in a computational environment software codes plays a structuring role much like law does in conventional social space.  Human-computer interface designers are deeply aware of the fact that what they build embodies decisions about policy, rights, values, and basic philosophical views on human action in the world. The open source community has a set of principles. The criteria include:
    1. Entering/leaving, leadership roles, power relations, distributional issues, education and socialization paths.
    2. Weber makes a very good point in stating that during most social or economic change analysts tend to focus on what we are losing and not on what we are gaining from moving forward. We are challenge the old methods and conventional thinking believes that this is the destructive of creativity where as it is the rebirth of it in a new medium.
    3. The third area in is the nature of collaboration – “Production processes that evolve in this space are not a hard test of limits but rather a leading indicator of change and a place where experiments can be seen at a relatively early stage.”
    4. Open source is testing social organization based on what we would define as property. Issues arise when we try to think of ownership in this environment, “rights to access, rights to extract, rights to sell, etc. “What does it mean to own something??

“Open source radically inverts the idea of exclusion as a basis of thinking about property. Property in open source is configured fundamentally around the right to distribute, not the right to exclude. This places the open source process a step beyond standard norms of sharing in a conventional scientific research community.” Copy is encourage and allowed, your basically giving back to the community when you provide your input to the open source community.

  1. How big of a phenomenon is this? How broad is its scope?
  2. It is an important idea for the social scientists to think about if it was to become a large-scale cooperation (which I think already is)
  3. How can it help our economy, growth?

Commons-based Peer Production and Virtue – Yochai Benkler and Helen Nissenbaum

  • Common-based peer production is a socio-economic system of production that is emerging in the digitally networked environment.  There are 3 major parts for this to occur. The infrastructure of the internet, collaboration among large groups of individuals to provide information, knowledge or cultural goods without relying on the market, (corporations). Benkler and Nissenbaum believe that these type of production offers people the opportunity to engage in virtuous behavior.
  • A society that provides opportunities for virtuous behavior is on that is more conducive to virtuous individuals
  • The practice of effective virtuous behavior may lead to more people adopting virtues of their own.
  • “Thesis:  that socio-technical systems of commons-based peer production offer not only remarkable medium of production for various kinds of information goods but serve as a context for positive character information. “
  • Examples of Commons-Based Peer Production
    • Free software projects and open source software are a collective effort of people towards a common goal in a more or less informal or loosely structured way. No one owns anything.  The most famous products of this type are GNU/Linux Operating system, Apache Web server, Perk, and BIND. In the creation of these projects there is no formal leadership to limit power in discussion, the effort is a combination or good will, volunteerism and technology.
    • SETI@home is a large-scale volunteer production through Internet-connected computers in Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence.  You download a small application in the form of a screensaver to your computer and while your away your computer would process the numbers from the SETI website. In essence created one of the largest super computers by distributing the tasks on different networks.
    • Nasa Clickworkers experiment: Individuals collaborated in 5 min increments to map and classify Mar’s craters. They would be completing tasks that a PhD would have to endure months of work.
    • Wikipedia – 30,000 users to collaborate and create an online encyclopedia. Wikipedia does not include elaborate software-controlled access or editing functionality.  Uses self-conscious use of open discourse, aimed at the consensus of all the users.

“Slashdot, a collaboration platform used by between 250,000 and 500,000 users. Users post links to technology stories they come across,

together with comments on them. Others then join in a conversation about the technology-related events, with comments on the underlying stories as well as comments on comments. – Slashdot is designed to constrain antisocial behavior based on it’s moderation points, limits the amount of influence a user can have on the collective. “


  1. Peer production is a model of social production, emerging along side contract and market based, managerial based and state based production.
  2. Two core characteristics in types of production  – Decentralization – the authority to act resides with individual agents faced with opportunities for action, rather than in the control of a central organizer.
  3. Second characteristic is they use social cues and motivations, rather than price or commands that are used in corporations (markets) to motivate and coordinate among individuals.
  4. This creates physical capital – a common goal – human effort and creativity.
  5. Peer production enterprises are becoming a mix of social and technical systems that encourage groups of users to collaborate without the backing or incentive of monetary compensation for the use of physical capital.3 Structural attributes – potential objects of peer production must be modular (must be divisible into components)
  6. Granularity of the modules – sizes of the project modules
  7. Low-cost integration – include both quality controls over the modules and functionality to bring the whole project together.
  8. One way to solve certain collective action problems is the introduction of GNU (General Public License), this prevents any defection from many free software projects. (ie GNU/Linux)


i.      Information Gain

ii.      The variability in fit of people to projects and existing info resources is great. The larger the number of people the more resources they have for projects.

iii.      People contribute to these projects because they gain a sense of purpose, they can display their creativity, or there is a common social goal, a sense of companionship  within a technical community.



Individuals choose to participate freely and  can contribute however much they want. They exercise free will and aren’t placed under any demand constraints.


Our day to day lives are programmed, from TV Channels, to our typical workdays,  peer production enables individuals to be more creative and productive in their tasks.


To seek the good in others, to benefit and help others, this is a common goal in commons based peer production – individuals are not providing in order to out do one another.


The open-hearted contribution is to a commons, a community, a pubic, a mission, or a fellowship.

“Virtue leads people to participate in commons-based peer projects, and that participation may give rise to virtue”

  1. Peer production benefits others because the individuals are contributing to a common good, and this enables autonomy and promotes public good.
  2. Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS): survey and study – found that the greatest percentage agreed that it enabled more freedom in software development, new forms of cooperation, opportunities to create more varieties of software and innovative breakthroughs.  “Share my knowledge and skill”


“Technical systems and devices are as much a part of political and moral life as practices, laws, regulations, institutions and norms. “

“Peer production can be said to provide a social context in which to act out, and a set of social practices through which to inculcate and develop, some quite basic human, social and political virtues.”

THE CATHEDRAL and the BAZAAR – Eric Steven Raymond

  • Linux – world class operating system created by several thousand developers all around the world by an internet connection. Raymond has been involved in this project in 1993 but had been part of the open source community for 10 years already.
  • Raymond has collaborated in the following projects – creation of the GNU, nethack, Emacs’s VC, etc.)
  • The most important software needed to build like “cathedrals”, carefully engineered and created by small groups of individuals in isolation.
  • The Linux community “seemed to resemble a great babbling bazaar of different agendas and approaches.”
  • This system of chaos, similar to bazaar, shockingly worked with the help of “Cathedral workers” as Raymond calls them.  Cathedral style is what is mostly used in the commercial world where as the Bazaar style is how the Linux system was developed. In this book he uses both approaches to see which is better in respect to “software debugging.”
  • He does an experiment by creating a new type of email service called Fetchmail. He wanted to have access to his email locally and SMTP doesn’t allow this, mostly POP3 accounts do.
  • Linus Torvalds, for example, didn’t actually try to write Linux from scratch. Instead, he started by reusing code and ideas from Minix, a tiny Unix-like operating system for PC clones. Eventually all the Minix code went away or was completely rewritten—but while it was there, it provided scaffolding for the infant that would eventually become Linux.
  • He used a POP client with the same base to start his creation with
  • After trying to edit fetchpop he saw a more robust system to base from Carl Harris
  • When you lose interest in a program, your last duty to it is to hand it off to a competent successor.
  • Treating your users as co-developers is your least-hassle route to rapid code improvement and effective debugging. Unix tradition, one that Linux pushes to a happy extreme, is that a lot of users are hackers too. Because source code is available, they can be effective hackers. This can be tremendously useful for shortening debugging time
  • Early and frequent releases are a critical part of the Linux development model. Most developers (including me) used to believe this was bad policy for larger than trivial projects, because early versions are almost by definition buggy versions and you don’t want to wear out the patience of your users. Release early. Release often. And listen to your customers.
  • Given a large enough beta-tester and co-developer base, almost every problem will be characterized quickly and the fix obvious to someone.
  • Linus demurred that the person who understands and fixes the problem is not necessarily or even usually the person who first characterizes it. “Somebody finds the problem,” he says, “and somebody else understands it – Linus’ Law
  • source-code awareness by both parties greatly enhances both good communication and the synergy between what a beta-tester reports and what the core developer(s) know. In turn, this means that the core developers’ time tends to be well conserved, even with many collaborators.
  • Smart data structures and dumb code works a lot better than the other way around.
  • If you treat your beta-testers as if they’re your most valuable resource, they will respond by becoming your most valuable resource.
  • The next best thing to having good ideas is recognizing good ideas from your users. Sometimes the latter is better.
  • Often, the most striking and innovative solutions come from realizing that your concept of the problem was wrong.
  • “Perfection (in design) is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but rather when there is nothing more to take away.”
  • There is a more general lesson in this story about how SMTP delivery came to fetchmail. It is not only debugging that is parallelizable; development and (to a perhaps surprising extent) exploration of design space is, too. When your development mode is rapidly iterative, development and enhancement may become special cases of debugging—fixing `bugs of omission’ in the original capabilities or concept of the software.
  • Any tool should be useful in the expected way, but a truly great tool lends itself to uses you never expected.
  • When writing gateway software of any kind, take pains to disturb the data stream as little as possible—and never throw away information unless the recipient forces you to!
  • A security system is only as secure as its secret. Beware of pseudo-secrets.
  • Provided the development coordinator has a communications medium at least as good as the Internet, and knows how to lead without coercion, many heads are inevitably better than one.

How can digital media collaborate in delivering the Arts?

High art should not lower down and mess up with technology: the purists would faint at the mere thought! What, Mozart in YouTube? Picasso’s profile on Facebook? The Metropolitan Opera leaving its sacred marble temple to show in movie theaters across the globe? Oops. I guess that’s been done!

How can the new media collaborate with cultural organizations in general to help them reach larger audiences and breach geographical and cultural divides, within a limited budget?

New digital media allows us to do what we never thought we could: shorten distances, experience several situations at a time, and participate in events that take place miles away. I haven’t found it yet, but I am sure that someone out there is using 360º cameras, live streaming, interactive mapping or HD television to blow up the possibilities of a great event, art exhibit or local tradition. I want to find out what is going on, but here’s the catch: I want to see if it can work in a country that is not completely wired and over-connected. The Met and the National Theatre have figured it out, but there must be affordable ways of mixing culture and new media.

YouTube Preview Image

Catching up with the XXI Century- culture and the Web

Hi, everyone. I am happy to join this conversation as the newest addition to this Topics in Digital Media class– Quick presentation: My name is Jimena Lara, second-semester MCC student from Mexico City. My general background is in Communication and Cultural Public Policy. I’ve been working in different areas of Mexico’s Ministry of Culture for the past few years: mainly in cultural project development in general, grants and scholarships for the arts; and marketing for the performing arts.

My experience there has shown me how technology’s role within the Arts has become increasingly important; both as means and platforms for creation, and as a priceless tool for marketing, communication and cultural advocacy– especially in a country with such diverse cultural needs as Mexico.

I would like my first plunge into digital travel to go down this path. I believe that there are awesome possibilities of making arts organizations and new media join in an amazing, firework-deserving, explosive relationship. Some of the issues that I’d like to explore are:

1.  Outreach–

Unlike the United States, cultural policy in Mexico is mainly a governmental issue. The majority of the cultural institutions and the education and cultural policies are under the control of the Federal and Local Governments through the National Council for Culture and the Arts; and the vast majority of cultural institutions (all of the archeological sites and most of the museums and concert halls, as well as the main orchestras, dance and theatre companies, etc.) are financed with public funds.

Therefore, it is a primary objective and responsibility to make culture and the Arts as accessible as possible for the whole country. This means reaching an extremely  diverse population (both socially and economically) with, of course, a very limited (actually, shrinking) budget. The sizzling urban centers might be bustling with theater, film and museums, but also the small rural towns in the middle of the mountains, the jungle or the desert need to be taken into account and their own cultural expressions to find a spot in the national stage.

How can digital media help to establish a true cultural dialogue between urban and rural? What possibilities does it offer for crossing the multi-language barrier in a country with 62 indigenous tongues? In the world of streaming and 360º cameras, distance should be a much lesser problem, right?

2. New audience formation–

In order to survive, any cultural institution needs to keep reaching for different segments of the population and engage new audiences in its offers. Digital media can prove to offer amazing tools to interest the younger generations, as well as other alternative, highly politicized or underground communities.

3. Digital marketing and publicity–

I can’t say if it’s a wider phenomenon, but least in Mexico the tendency of cultural organizations (both public, private and non-for-profit) is to focus their advertising and marketing efforts mostly on the media that they have known for so long: newspapers, magazines, radio, TV, flyers, posters, and billboards. In my experience, the older and more ‘respectable’ the institution is, the more it doubts the effectiveness of digital alternatives of advertising. Furthermore, they seem to tremble at the mere thought of opening their websites to the uncontrollable world of social media (“but what if someone criticizes us and everybody reads it?”). Although traditional media does give positive results, there is no questioning the impact of digital media and, particularly, social networking as a faster, much cheaper means of publicity and circulation. I’d like to further explore the communication strategies that have worked for local art institutions.

4. Networking–

How can public, private and non-for-profit cultural institutions make the most of digital networking? Strong connections are essential for funding, idea exchange, joint advertising, and other forms of cross-pollination. Even more than institutions, independent artists and collectives can benefit enormously from joining systems, lists, and other collectives to show and even commercialize their work– like this cool project from hitRECORD.org Still, in the ever-growing sea of options that is the Web, it’s hard for smaller actors to gain visibility. What are the best strategies for this?

Anyway, I know I need to narrow this down a lot and set a clearer path to travel or I might end up walking in circles–and without a GoogleMap, of course.