Archives for category: openweb

As a lover of the interwebs and someone who’s followed the research from the likes of AOIR and the Berkman Center for Internet and Society (see Tim Hwang’s great piece on the Berkman school of thought),  a recent discussion about the merits of “internet studies” is quite provoking:

Maybe we should stop talking about “information and communication technologies” or “the Internet” or “new and social media” as a single constellation of technologies that have key characteristics in common (distinctively participatory, or distinctively intrusive, for example), and that are sufficiently different from other parts of the world that they need to be talked about separately.

The Internet is still pretty new, so we tend to look at it as a definable thing, but digital technologies have now become so multifaceted and so enmeshed in other facets of our lives that such a broad brush obscures more than it reveals.

— Tom Slee, Blogs and Bullets: Breaking Down Social Media

And Henry Farrell’s reply:

Instead of wanting to study ‘the Internet’ or ‘Facebook’ or whatever, we should investigate the possible existence or relative strength of various posited mechanisms which causally connect certain situations with certain kinds of interesting outcomes. Most technologies will potentially bundle a number of these mechanisms together – hence, the need to try to disentangle these mechanisms as much as is possible in specific instances.

Instead of asking ‘does Facebook help protests in authoritarian regimes?,’ one would ask questions such as ‘does social influence from peers make individuals more likely to participate in demonstrations?,’ ‘does widely spread information about protester deaths make individuals more or less likely to participate?,’ ‘does government-provided information make citizens less likely to participate in anti-regime protests?’ and so on.

This is a helpful lens through which we can better focus on what we mean by “the web” and why it matters.  We tried to tackle some of these definitional challenges in An Open Web, outlining key “battlefields” which describe what’s at stake in terms of mechanisms (i.e. specific user freedoms and actions, rather than just threats to “the web” as such).

The above posts are timely reminders about the tendency to speak broadly about the internet as an umbrella term for the particular mechanisms, some of which are internet-dependent while others are only augmented or manifested online. This specificity is a hard discipline to enforce—I’m often too flippant or lazy to make clear distinctions, and moreover I assume that the audience picks up on my shorthand when I talked generally about the web.

But let’s strive be more specific about the mechanisms that are truly in play. This will not only make it easier for more people to understand why the web matters, in its many facets, but also inform a more nuanced discussion about how to accelerate meaningful initiatives and demarcate the real battlefields, which are immediate and important.

“As much as we love the open Web, we’re abandoning it.”
—Chris Anderson, WIRED Magazine

The Web was meant to be Everything. As the Internet as a whole assumes an increasingly commanding role as the technology of global commerce and communication, the World Wide Web from its very inception was designed to be a free and open medium through which human knowledge is created, accessed and exchanged. But, that Web is in danger of coming to a close. This book shows what is happening and how you can play an important role in keeping the web open.

An Open Web was written in 5 days by 6 collaborators. Zero to book in 5 days. It was an intensive process and loads of fun. You can also participate by improving the book and and keeping it alive!  All edits are welcome! The Book Sprint was held in Berlin January 17-21 2011, sponsored by Transmediale and FLOSS Manuals and the CHB.

Read the HTML version.

Read the ePub version.

Order the printed book.

thewallhttp://wall.fabricatorz.com/

I’m locked in a room with six crazed writers to crank out an ambitious publication, “An Open Web.” The sprint, facilitated by Adam Hyde of FLOSS Manuals and commissioned by the transmediale, sits in the penthouse of the window/screen-filled Bauhaus property of Collegium Hungaricum Berlin (“Berlin is too important to leave to the Germans,” explains its director János Can Togay).

We’re struggling to define the (open) Web and to make it a compelling topic for a general audience, typified by an iStockphoto image of someone we’re generically referring to as “the Dude.”

It’s turning out to be a good challenge. We’ve made the key design decision to create an outline that carries our thesis in the chapter titles alone. If you can get what we have to say just by reading the table of contents, we’ve done a good job. The goal of the rest of the book is now to back up each of the bold title statements.

I’m hacking on “The Future is Open” chapter, wherein I attempt to argue that the Web as already enabled innumerable successes in a diverse range of fields (education, science, the arts, democracy) and furthermore make the claim that, if it remains open, we’ll see continue to see this and more.

I’m not doing the best job highlighting various online darlings and linking the causation to the Web. As we get stricter with our definition (a huge debate in itself), it’s harder to map the enabler of certain projects. Could Wikipedia have happened without the Web? If not, what part of the Web was critical to its growth? The same question could be asked in many fields. We’re not talking about a mirage of Twitter Revolutions, so what about the Web, as opposed to other internet technologies, fostered civic engagement and democracy? Some of these cases become slippery to pin down.

After a late dinner break and wine-drinking, we pulled up Chris Anderson’s extremely controversial (and self-serving) article, The Web is Dead. In it he argues that the recent trends towards tether appliances and app stores is reinforced by our purchases. “Openness is a wonderful thing in the nonmonetary economy of peer production. But eventually our tolerance for the delirious chaos of infinite competition finds its limits,” Anderson speculates.”Much as we love freedom and choice, we also love things that just work, reliably and seamlessly. And if we have to pay for what we love, well, that increasingly seems OK.”

Is this right? Well, there’s some truth to the veiled point that open stuff needs better user interfaces. Igor has made this fantastic point before: when open technologies don’t work and don’t develop better interfaces, users go elsewhere. Open has to compete with good design and stellar user experiences. We’re seeing a strong signal of this from the tidal rush to dumb-downed devices. But there is no reason why open can’t be beautiful and easy to use. It’s a challenge, and open projects do need more designers and talented people who can create simple yet powerful environments. The Web needs all sorts of people talking about their preferences and lending expertise to making the technology what they want and deserve.

But what else is it about the Anderson piece that is inflaming? Well, his conflation of openness and the possibility of payment, for starters. And his uncouth product placement later in the article (“check out Wired’s cool new iPad app!”). I guess the graph he touted has received a thorough bashing, too.

Still, rather than being reactionary, we’re working through positive statements about the Web. We’ll be talking about rights that users have (the right to enter, participate, and exit; the right to control your data), and we’ll be talking about key battlegrounds (devices, browsers, standards). Joi Ito’s brilliant Open Stack will provide a lot of backbone to our arguments.

I’m so curious to see where this book takes us. I’m already learning a lot and more than pushing up against the limits of my knowledge. If folks are keen to help out, create an account at FLOSS Manuals and dig in. We could use the help!