Five principles of successful mass collaboration, part 3
Charles Leadbeter continues with linux.com on the role of the community in creating content.
Five principles of successful masovo cooperation, part 3.
Original article www.linux.com/feature/130025
By Charles Leadbeater www.wethinkthebook.net/home.aspx
(Comments of the translator, written as an explanation of the author's text are in brackets)
The successful We-Think project (We-Think) is based on five key principles. Earlier, three principles were presented; here are the last two.
')
This article is an extract from the recently published book We We Think: The Power of Mass Creativity. Www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/asin/1861978928/vasoft-20
Cooperation
Mass contributions from representatives of the community do not constitute anything, if together they do not create something ordered (expected) and complex. The encyclopedia is not a collection of massive random individual contributions; it is a structured record or amount of knowledge. People who play the game or build a community need general rules that govern them, otherwise chaos will occur. How to make a community project We-Think with self-management without a clear responsible hierarchy enforcing these laws? This requirement is not so much technical as political. The We-Think project only works when responsible self-government exists, and it is an especially difficult thing to achieve in very diverse communities.
Often people think differently (in different directions) because they have very different values; these differences matter. He who sees the world through art and images will be dominated by such skills as drawing and painting, this will simplify his work.
Anyone who sees the world in numbers and money will be more preferable as an accountant who will use a calculator rather than an easel. A large set of tools, which includes a calculator and easel, as well as creative and accountants are good for innovation.
The problem is that people with fundamentally different values often find it difficult to agree on what exactly they should do and why. Different ways of thinking are essential for innovation; different values are based on differences in what matters to us; this often leads to quarrels. That is why diverse communities often find it difficult to agree on how to create public goods such as health care, charity and social housing. Different groups can become very unproductive when their differences are suppressed, provoking conflicts for resources and goals. Elinor Ostrom found that public places (meaning shared resources) for fisheries, forests and irrigation systems require effective self-government and local local monitoring by participants to ensure that no one is abusing resources.
When local government collapses, then the collapse of the community begins and no innovation is possible.
The project We-Think is successful due to the creation of self-governance in communities
who makes the most of their varied knowledge without being overwhelmed by their differences. This is only possible if these communities are united around a simple life-giving goal, if they develop legitimate ways to view and sort ideas, and if they have the right kind of management. Whatever they are, these communities are egalitarian (equality-based) self-governing democratic states.
For example, consider the open source community that produces the Ubuntu distribution, a user-friendly version of Linux.
Mark Shuttleworth, the founder of Ubuntu, looks like a benevolent dictator; he makes some decisions on his own, such as the look and feel of the Ubuntu website. The essence and foundation of the entire Ubuntu developer community is a technical forum, a meeting place online for setting technical standards and defining what should be included in different versions of software. The decisions that are made in this forum are clear and open: anyone can suggest additions or changes in policy (distribution development) through the Ubuntu wiki; The forum agenda is available on the wiki every two weeks. And everyone can visit the online discussion as an observer. In the end, decisions are made by Shuttleworth and four other members of the forum who are specifically appointed for this purpose. Although the subject for voting among the community is raised by the programmers themselves.
Meanwhile, individual Ubuntu community meetings are engaged in the social structure of the community, creating new projects and on the designated team leaders who support various releases (releases) of the distribution and the features and capabilities of programs, for example, for users of desktop computers or laptops. For example, the team LoCo, which is engaged in the promotion and promotion of Ubuntu around the world. Anyone can become a member of the Ubuntu community by writing programs, creating and maintaining up-to-date documentation, investing in graphics, or simply starting to promote Ubuntu. By mid-2007, the core of the Ubuntu community numbered 283 people. Along with increasing opportunities and increasing responsibility — reaching the level of Masters of the Universe — the core of the development team and they have their own advice to determine who should be dedicated to their guild.
The lesson of Ubuntu, which is still far from proven (that is, perfect) success, is to effectively manage a creative (creative) community, the structure of which resembles a grid. Making decisions is open: everyone can see what exactly is being solved and how; anyone can offer something of their own about what needs to be done. But the decisions themselves are rarely made democratically. Ubuntu is perhaps an open source product, but the community that supports it is far from being completely open. This is not at all like the utopian communes of the 1960s, which show why they could be more successful than the co-operatives of the past.
Creation (creation)
The project We-Think allows mass social creativity that thrives when many participants with different attitudes and skills, with the ability to think independently and have tools for input (creating something) that are united by a common goal. If the participants are distributed, they should have a way to share "their work with others", combine them and connect them with a common goal for the benefit of the common cause.
However, most of the time, participants can work independently and in parallel, often reworking elements of the core (core) of the central product, as well as the epic poem of the Ancient Greeks, a piece of genetic code, a modern program update, or an encyclopedia. The product develops due to the increase and the process of mutual criticism, support and imitation, inheritance (ideas, code). Most people do this because they get a lot of pleasure from their active work and are looking for recognition for their merits in the project. Such communities should have places for meetings and communication — forms, websites, festivals, newspapers, magazines where people can publish and share ideas. Social creativity is not free for everyone, it represents the highest structuredness. In addition, the boundaries between the expert and amateur, the spectator and the performer, the user and the developer can be erased. Those who rely on the history and quality of their investments (developments) are more permanent in the community, thus forming a form of a kind of tightly intertwined, networked professional aristocracy. Without effective self-management of social creativity, there comes a collapse (of the community): decisions must be made about what should be included in the source code, published on the website, news headlines (top news list). Participants who do not obey the rules adopted in the community should be immediately excluded from it. They must respect the decisions made by the community.
Raw material obtained through collaboration is a creative product (in the original of the article is talent), which is very inconsistent, changeable. People think well and in different ways in different directions. It is difficult to say from the outside, for example, using time-and-motion research, who is more effective creative (worker). It is impossible to create a job description with a detailed writing of what the creative (the employee) should do, what ideas should be created by him and when. Open Source communities solve the difficulties of managing creative activities by decentralizing the creation of solutions for small groups of those who decide what they need to work on depending on what and on what need what should be done, taking into account the nature of their skills and abilities. It is very difficult for all to organize, but the path will soon become known.
When it works, the evaluation from the outside is distinguished by its availability in the separation of ideas and the preservation of product quality at low costs.
Five principles of successful masovo cooperation, part 3.
Original article www.linux.com/feature/130025
By Charles Leadbeater www.wethinkthebook.net/home.aspx
(Comments of the translator, written as an explanation of the author's text are in brackets)
The successful We-Think project (We-Think) is based on five key principles. Earlier, three principles were presented; here are the last two.
')
This article is an extract from the recently published book We We Think: The Power of Mass Creativity. Www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/asin/1861978928/vasoft-20
Cooperation
Mass contributions from representatives of the community do not constitute anything, if together they do not create something ordered (expected) and complex. The encyclopedia is not a collection of massive random individual contributions; it is a structured record or amount of knowledge. People who play the game or build a community need general rules that govern them, otherwise chaos will occur. How to make a community project We-Think with self-management without a clear responsible hierarchy enforcing these laws? This requirement is not so much technical as political. The We-Think project only works when responsible self-government exists, and it is an especially difficult thing to achieve in very diverse communities.
Often people think differently (in different directions) because they have very different values; these differences matter. He who sees the world through art and images will be dominated by such skills as drawing and painting, this will simplify his work.
Anyone who sees the world in numbers and money will be more preferable as an accountant who will use a calculator rather than an easel. A large set of tools, which includes a calculator and easel, as well as creative and accountants are good for innovation.
The problem is that people with fundamentally different values often find it difficult to agree on what exactly they should do and why. Different ways of thinking are essential for innovation; different values are based on differences in what matters to us; this often leads to quarrels. That is why diverse communities often find it difficult to agree on how to create public goods such as health care, charity and social housing. Different groups can become very unproductive when their differences are suppressed, provoking conflicts for resources and goals. Elinor Ostrom found that public places (meaning shared resources) for fisheries, forests and irrigation systems require effective self-government and local local monitoring by participants to ensure that no one is abusing resources.
When local government collapses, then the collapse of the community begins and no innovation is possible.
The project We-Think is successful due to the creation of self-governance in communities
who makes the most of their varied knowledge without being overwhelmed by their differences. This is only possible if these communities are united around a simple life-giving goal, if they develop legitimate ways to view and sort ideas, and if they have the right kind of management. Whatever they are, these communities are egalitarian (equality-based) self-governing democratic states.
For example, consider the open source community that produces the Ubuntu distribution, a user-friendly version of Linux.
Mark Shuttleworth, the founder of Ubuntu, looks like a benevolent dictator; he makes some decisions on his own, such as the look and feel of the Ubuntu website. The essence and foundation of the entire Ubuntu developer community is a technical forum, a meeting place online for setting technical standards and defining what should be included in different versions of software. The decisions that are made in this forum are clear and open: anyone can suggest additions or changes in policy (distribution development) through the Ubuntu wiki; The forum agenda is available on the wiki every two weeks. And everyone can visit the online discussion as an observer. In the end, decisions are made by Shuttleworth and four other members of the forum who are specifically appointed for this purpose. Although the subject for voting among the community is raised by the programmers themselves.
Meanwhile, individual Ubuntu community meetings are engaged in the social structure of the community, creating new projects and on the designated team leaders who support various releases (releases) of the distribution and the features and capabilities of programs, for example, for users of desktop computers or laptops. For example, the team LoCo, which is engaged in the promotion and promotion of Ubuntu around the world. Anyone can become a member of the Ubuntu community by writing programs, creating and maintaining up-to-date documentation, investing in graphics, or simply starting to promote Ubuntu. By mid-2007, the core of the Ubuntu community numbered 283 people. Along with increasing opportunities and increasing responsibility — reaching the level of Masters of the Universe — the core of the development team and they have their own advice to determine who should be dedicated to their guild.
The lesson of Ubuntu, which is still far from proven (that is, perfect) success, is to effectively manage a creative (creative) community, the structure of which resembles a grid. Making decisions is open: everyone can see what exactly is being solved and how; anyone can offer something of their own about what needs to be done. But the decisions themselves are rarely made democratically. Ubuntu is perhaps an open source product, but the community that supports it is far from being completely open. This is not at all like the utopian communes of the 1960s, which show why they could be more successful than the co-operatives of the past.
Creation (creation)
The project We-Think allows mass social creativity that thrives when many participants with different attitudes and skills, with the ability to think independently and have tools for input (creating something) that are united by a common goal. If the participants are distributed, they should have a way to share "their work with others", combine them and connect them with a common goal for the benefit of the common cause.
However, most of the time, participants can work independently and in parallel, often reworking elements of the core (core) of the central product, as well as the epic poem of the Ancient Greeks, a piece of genetic code, a modern program update, or an encyclopedia. The product develops due to the increase and the process of mutual criticism, support and imitation, inheritance (ideas, code). Most people do this because they get a lot of pleasure from their active work and are looking for recognition for their merits in the project. Such communities should have places for meetings and communication — forms, websites, festivals, newspapers, magazines where people can publish and share ideas. Social creativity is not free for everyone, it represents the highest structuredness. In addition, the boundaries between the expert and amateur, the spectator and the performer, the user and the developer can be erased. Those who rely on the history and quality of their investments (developments) are more permanent in the community, thus forming a form of a kind of tightly intertwined, networked professional aristocracy. Without effective self-management of social creativity, there comes a collapse (of the community): decisions must be made about what should be included in the source code, published on the website, news headlines (top news list). Participants who do not obey the rules adopted in the community should be immediately excluded from it. They must respect the decisions made by the community.
Raw material obtained through collaboration is a creative product (in the original of the article is talent), which is very inconsistent, changeable. People think well and in different ways in different directions. It is difficult to say from the outside, for example, using time-and-motion research, who is more effective creative (worker). It is impossible to create a job description with a detailed writing of what the creative (the employee) should do, what ideas should be created by him and when. Open Source communities solve the difficulties of managing creative activities by decentralizing the creation of solutions for small groups of those who decide what they need to work on depending on what and on what need what should be done, taking into account the nature of their skills and abilities. It is very difficult for all to organize, but the path will soon become known.
When it works, the evaluation from the outside is distinguished by its availability in the separation of ideas and the preservation of product quality at low costs.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/31592/
All Articles