Wikinomics

The premise of Wikinomics is simple: the more your company lets outsiders in, or even turns the company over to the masses, the more new ideas are generated, the more new products are developed, and the more problems are solved.

Sage journals online:
Wikinomics and its discontents: a critical analysis of Web 2.0 business manifestos

José Van Dijck
University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands, j.van.dijck@uva.nl

David Nieborg

University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands, D.B.Nieborg@uva.nl

'Collaborative culture', 'mass creativity' and 'co-creation' appear to be contagious buzzwords that are rapidly infecting economic and cultural discourse on Web 2.0. Allegedly, peer production models will replace opaque, top-down business models, yielding to transparent, democratic structures where power is in the shared hands of responsible companies and skilled, qualified users. Manifestos such as Wikinomics (Tapscott and Williams, 2006) and 'We-Think' (Leadbeater, 2007) argue collective culture to be the basis for digital commerce. This article analyzes the assumptions behind this Web 2.0 newspeak and unravels how business gurus try to argue the universal benefits of a democratized and collectivist digital space. They implicitly endorse a notion of public collectivism that functions entirely inside commodity culture. The logic of Wikinomics and 'We-Think' urgently begs for deconstruction, especially since it is increasingly steering mainstream cultural theory on digital
culture.

The wall street journal:
The institution that has most resisted new ways of doing things is the biggest one of all: government. This is about to change, with public-sector bureaucracies the new target for Web innovators. These include Don Tapscott, the business-strategy consultant who, with his New Paradigm consulting colleague Anthony Williams, in 2006 popularized Web 2.0 with the bestselling "Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything."

Mr. Tapscott's next research project is called "Government 2.0: Wikinomics, Government & Democracy." Its participants include the Office of Management and Budget. The goal is to use Web-based collaboration to "reinvent government."

If this sounds fanciful, here's a quick refresher on these new Web tools, and why government makes an excellent prospect for change.

The Wikinomics book tells the über-anecdote of a Toronto gold mining company, Goldcorp, whose in-house geologists were no longer able to estimate the location of gold on its properties. The company decided to publish its geological data, previously considered confidential intellectual property. This "open source" approach solicited outsiders to suggest where to prospect. Contestants applied disciplines including math, physics, computer graphics and even military strategy. Goldcorp converted about a half million dollars in prize money into billions of dollars in found gold.

history of news:

‘Do the internet and Web 2.0 have the potential to be more idealised version of Habermas’ Public Sphere?’

The public sphere involves people coming together to discuss ideas and opinions that evolves from reading books to any form of opinion on a subject. The name ‘Public Sphere’ was given to this form of communication by a man called Jurgen Habermas. He believed that the development of the public sphere started in the 18^th century and transformed society from being feudal to a more equal society in which, people could express their opinions and possess more open views on subjects, such as books and novels. Habermas was born in Germany in 1929 and was linked with the Institute of social research in Frankfurt. He then published ‘The Structural Transformation of the public sphere’ in 1962. This put his thoughts about the public sphere into a structure, suggesting that the first known form of communication would have been coffee shops.
Habermas was correct in thinking that coffee shops were one of the first forms of The Public Sphere and that as society became more of a democracy and technology evolved, there would be more ways of this type of communication. Web 2.0 was the name given at a later date when websites that resembled the Public Sphere began to form. The concept of Web 2.0 began in a conference held between O’Reilly and the Media Live International in October 2004. They noted the importance of the web for this type of communication and the growing trend in websites marketing for all audiences (not those that just wanted to discuss books, on any subject). The name was given ‘Web 2.0’ and people started to branch off the characteristics given to it, but in some case it adopting the same characteristics as The Public Sphere. There became more of a demand in forms of Web 2.0 to discuss opinions or to just socialise and it captured these same characteristics of The Public Sphere, involving any one person discussing and forming opinions and ideas with one or more people in an area. At the moment 24.7% of the world’s population use or have access to the internet, which has tripled compared to 2000.

However, although Web 2.0 adopts The Public Sphere characteristics, Habermas envisioned that the discussion between the groups of people would be equal. There was no way of telling the person’s gender, age or nationality. The equality came from the anonymous way of using the internet as a public sphere; Habermas believed that people would be judged entirely on what they say on the subject of discussion. Technology has ventured further than his prediction and on websites such as Facebook, Myspace, Twitter and Blogger profile pictures and name status’ can be shown by that person. Web 2.0 websites include a lot of information about the person and equality is scarce in discussions on these sites.

It is now much easier for people worldwide to be able to connect to the internet, allowing discussions to take place around the globe. The amount of information that can be accessed is huge, but web 2.0 is not always reliable in both comment and function. Some of the websites can be slow and this can make discussing a subject hard. Sites such as Wikipedia can be edited by anyone that has access to it, so it is not always generating the correct information as some pages have been tampered with by the public. This could mislead people and the web 2. Website would not be acting as a public sphere. However, the website encourages discussion, such as social networking sites that allow communication easily through profiles, comments and online chat. However, social networking has fallen under the category of being a place for younger people to socialise, instead of a discussion, although ideas and views can be formed.

Technology has evolved, so more options are being made possible on the web and more takes on web 2.0 are expanding and not always fitting the public sphere criteria, or could be seen as a new outlook on it. Videos can be posted onto YouTube allowing all internet users to look and comment on that video, this is an ideal form of web 2.0, but does not fit the Habermas’ idea of The Public Sphere’. However, a website such as Blogger can be set up on any subject and people can comment on their blogs and follow other people’s blogs. This is a more genuine and relatable example of a web forms of the public sphere because it adopts the idea of a subject to discuss and any person being able to comment on the discussion.

Web 2.0 shies away from being discussion based and becomes non systematic, which defeats the point of the public sphere, however this is not the case with all web 2.0 sites, but as discussions are best held in person, rather than on the internet, as people use their body language and personality to get over opinions in a discussion. This is not as effective on Web 2.0 websites, although we do get some feel for a person’s character. Habermas believed discussions were best had in person to avoid confusion in any debate or subject. However, web 2.0 does in some ways fit into the criteria allowing people to do this to a certain extent, but it is not always used for the discussions of subject and technology has furthered and in some ways lost the control that the public sphere needed,

In conclusion, web 2.0 does base include some of the characteristics of Habermas’ public sphere, because technology has developed people are able to come together over the internet and discuss ideas and opinions. Although web 2.0 is classified as more complex, some websites do adopt this structure and behave as the public sphere was intended to. The amount of people that have internet access has grown and web 2.0 is the closest relation to the public sphere, but the simplicity of the public sphere is not obvious when using web 2.0 and is not apparent to the public.

History of news

Since Ancient Greek and Roman times, it has been necessary to have a trusted person with a clear, loud voice to deliver  news and instructions to the population, many of whom could neither read nor write. However it was not until the early Middle Ages, from the reign of William the Conqueror in England after 1066, that a more formal system of Town Criers was recognised.

Town Criers were appointed by the civil authorities, often the Mayor, to keep the citizens informed of matters of national and local importance - anything from Royal events, wars, executions and taxation down to lost dogs, and minor misdemeanours. Prior to the introduction of a formal police force, the Town Crier, being a true, trusted Royalist, was also often empowered to uphold the law. In fact, it was once a treasonable offence to assault or interfere with a Town Crier in the execution of his duty. Often the role of Town Crier was passed down from father to son for many generations, and it was seen as a position of some standing in the community.

Apart from a loud voice, the tools of a Town Criers trade are the bell and scroll. The bell is an obvious means of gaining the attention of a crowd, although occasionally a drum or a horn may have been used. The scroll was a convenient way of ensuring that it was easy to read straight along the lines of a text, by rolling the scroll as it is read. After the proclamation had been read the scroll was often nailed to a post for the more literate members of the populace to read at their leisure - hence the expression 'to post a notice'. The Town Criers trademark call of "Oyez! Oyez! Oyez!" is derived from the old French expression for "Listen!" or  "Hear Ye!". Traditionally, Town Criers finish their proclamations with "God Save The Queen! (or King)".

With the advent of modern communications - newspapers, radio, TV and the internet, and the almost 100% literacy rate of the population, you may be mistaken for thinking that the Town Crier should have become a doomed species. But today there are about 200 Town Criers in Britain, and more in other countries, particularly Australia, Canada and the U.S.A. Town Criers are now in great demand for civic ceremonies, charity functions, tourism events and commercial ventures, where their colourful costumes, imposing presence and historical significance are greatly valued. There are also many friendly competitions to find the 'best' Town Crier! However, most Town Criers will agree that they do the job principally because they enjoy keeping an ancient tradition alive, and consider it an honour and a privilege to serve their town and community.

Lesson 2 - The Public Sphere

Jurgen Habermas was born in Germany in 1929 an went to the Frankfurt school, they were a group of philosophers linked with the institute of Social research in Frankfurt from the 1920s.
His idea was to create discussions between people and for them to come together and share ideas.
We have been given an essay and a title that we have to update including Web 2.0 and how it fits in with what Jurgen Habermas was trying to achieve. People can now come together through web 2.0 to talk about anything and to share ideas and opinions which is the most recent and modern take on 'The Public Sphere'.

'Do the Internet and Web 2.0 have the potential to be a more idealised version of Habermas' Public Sphere?'

Web 2.0 - Facebook

Facebook

This is an example of social networking; it is not the typical static website as this allows people to communicate. By someone creating their own profile, they can upload pictures and videos of themselves and friends that they can share with any of their friends on Facebook. It allows you to communicate between friends on an instant chat, which appears as a bar on the right hand side of the screen. Friends that are online are shown on the list, which makes them available to chat. However, this site also allows people to post comments on their friends profile or send private messages via an email system that is on the Facebook website (facebook mail). Friends can be blocked and added as the person chooses, also with options to choose if your profile is assessable to friends or even people that are not your friends. Because Facebook has the friend finder application, people can find friends they wish to add and get in contact with even if they live abroad. This is a good example of web 2.0 because it is a social networking website that can be edited by anybody. It is not a static website and is for the use for people to edit information they wish to like many of the other social networking websites, such as Myspace, Bebo and Twitter.

Facebook includes quizzes and applications that allow you to take such tests as ‘what will you be when your older?’ and ‘What are you wearing at the moment?’ These applications are visible on the main homepage to friends and contacts. Facebook allows the person to choose what information they wish to share with others, they can also create quizzes about themselves, which friends can take to see how well they know each other. People can also update their status to how they are feeling and what they are doing; it is a good way of communicating. The founder of Facebook was Mark Zuckerberg that originally was studying psychology at Harvard. A number of social networking programs were produced before this such as ‘Facemash’ that rated people’s attractiveness. In 2004, ‘The Facebook’ was launched and it became popular between the students and university and soon in was launched as a website for the use of all countries in 2005, after a purchase for the address made Facebook worth $200,000. Most the people that use Facebook are of all ages, although it has become increasingly popular for younger users to chat to eachother. Many older users use it as a way of contacting old friends, but originally it was designed for any user no matter what the age.

Lesson 1: Web 2.0

Today we learnt about Web 2.0:

Web 2.0 websites are ones that can be edited by the public. Websites such as

Facebook - Talk with people abroad, join groups and share information.

Myspace - Comment on pictures and profiles and chat online

Bebo - Able to play games and leave comments, this is a good sight to interact with people.

Youtube - To share videos and leave comments about these videos

Google documents - Groups can collaborate to produce a document online

Blogger - Can follow other peoples blogs that interest that person, opinions and news from normal people.

Online Shopping - Able to leave reviews about the clothes and is a reliable system to get a review of products.

The advantages are that people can communicate easily over these websites. They can share photos and videos and it is a good way of keeping in touch with people, finding old friends and being able to talk to friends that live abroad. Social networking are good for this communication. Can save money, by not going to the cinema and watching videos on sights like Youtube.

The disadvantages occur mostly in Wikipedia, that people can edit the information, including peoples documents, which has caused a lot of fuss and misguided information.