Open Source Software vs Closed Source Software

Feller, Fitzgerald, Hissam and Lakhani (2005, 18) suggest the term "open source software" refers to software products that are distributed, modified, and used by any user without payment to an author for such uses. Feller et al (2005, 18) outline that "products such as the GNU/Linux operating system, the Apache Web server, the Mozilla Web browser, the PHP programming language, and the OpenOffice productivity suite are all well-known examples of this kind of software". In addition to this, the Free Software Foundation lists hundreds of other free software in their Free Software Directory that is free for users to browse, download, use, modify, redistribute etc. The key characteristic of open source software is that anyone can edit and modify the software, however, this is usually done by teams of users in the community (Bruns 2008). The concept of open source software has various parallels with the advantageous characteristics of online communities and the key principles of produsage. Development and editing of the software is done in direct response to user needs, typically because it is being edited by the users themselves. Opensource.org sums up the key advantages of open source software perfectly.

"The basic idea behind open source is very simple: When programmers can read, redistribute, and modify the source code for a piece of software, the Software evolves. People improve it, people adapt it, people fix bugs. And this can happen at a speed that, if one is used to the slow pace of conventional software development, seems astonishing." (opensource.org in Bruns 2008).

This practice differs significantly to the somewhat traditional idea of "closed source software" where the source code remains confidential. Such closed source software examples include Windows, Office and Internet Explorer. These programs are developed by paid staff teams of a company and therefore are subject to hierarchical directions and restrictions. This more traditional idea of closed source software runs various parallels to the characteristics describing offline communities. This sort of software development is based on a business model and perhaps one of it's main objectives is to sell the software and make a profit. By doing this, obviously they are going to strive to produce something that is responsive to user needs in order to sell more, but perhaps they may not be quite so focused on, or have as much of an idea of, what exactly it is that the user needs compared with a group of community users that create open source software.

References:

Feller, J., B. Fitzgerald, S. Hissam and K. Lakhani. (2005). Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software. Retrieved May 10, 2008, from http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/chapters/0262562278.pdf

Example of Changing New Media Use

This is an excellent example of the way audiences are now consuming media differently. The actor is seen interacting with the Internet, mobile phone and MP3 player as he buys some concert tickets and organises to catch up with friends. By doing this, he would certainly be considered part of an online community. Comparatively, a couple of decades ago, the traditional way to purchase concert tickets and catch up with friends would have been vastly different.

New Audience Research

The new media audience is consuming and interacting with media in vastly different ways to what has previously been known. The increasing prevalence of online communities and the rise of the participatory culture means there are great changes in audience behaviour. Banks (2002, 189) suggests that “internet technologies and the users forming around them are in the process of constructing a very different ‘audience’, with different practices, expectations, materials, tools and technologies”. With these changes, however, must come changes in media audience research. Researchers are being left behind as traditional methods are no longer adequate to measure the change in behaviour of this new media audience. Livingstone (2005) suggests that "audience researchers are faced with a moving target as once-'new' media become familiar and ever-newer media emerge". Audience research needs to adapt their research techniques if the media industry is to successfully monitor and measure this new media audience.

"We do not know how to describe the audience for new media. 'Audience' fits the activities of listening and watching. New information and communication technologies open up more active and diverse modes of engagement with media - playing, surfing, searching, chatting and downloading." (Livingstone 2005, 44)

An interesting article addressing this idea is "Dude, Where's my Audience". They suggest that traditional media measurements and tracking aren't keeping up with new habits such as time-shifting programs and multi-tasking (sitting with one eye on the TV with another on the laptop in front of you). They suggest that because media measurements are failing to measure this, the new media audience is probably being vastly underestimated.

References:

Banks, J. (2002). "Gamers as Co-Creators: Enlisting the Virtual Audience - A Report From the Net Face," in M. Balnaves, T. O'Regan and J. Sternberg (eds) Mobilising the Audience, St Lucia: University of Queensland Press.

Livingstone, S. (2005). "Media Audiences, Interpreters and Users," in M. Gillespie (ed.) Media Audiences, Maidenhead: Open University Press.

TheAge.com. (2007). Dude, Where's My Audience? Retrieved April 15, 2008, from http://www.theage.com.au/news/web/dude-wheres-my-audience/2007/07/24/1185043119701.html?page=fullpage

Defining New Media and Traditional Media

I was sitting reading my blog this morning and thought that while my focus is on the changes that new media has brought about, I really needed to clarify what I consider to be new media, and how this is different to traditional media.

I think that it's important to acknowledge that new media shouldn't be regarded as a complete replacement of older media but more of an addition to and integration with traditional media. It's difficult to clearly distinguish between those mediums we consider 'new' and those we consider 'old', as technologies and, in turn, the media landscape is constantly changing and bringing about new media. Flew (2005, 2) suggests that "new media can also be thought of as digital media". He goes on to outline five key features of information in new media, including that it is:

• Manipulable - the digital format of new media is easy to change, adapt and edit.
• Networkable - digital information can be shared at a global scale.
• Dense - large amounts of information can be stored or transmitted quickly.
• Compressible - information stored on a network can be easily compressed, or decompressed when needed.
• Impartial - networks can share and exchange any kind of information regardless of who created it, what form it takes, or how the information is used.

The digitisation of older, traditional media forms, particularly aided by the Internet, for e.g. online newspapers, has also blurred the line between the classification of what is old and what is new.

This shift and convergence from old to new media also creates a significant shift away from the traditional model of information and towards the network model. The main difference between the traditional model and the network model is the way information is produced. The traditional model is typically characterised by the production of information by established institutions of society. There are clearly defined power structures, and usually forms a top-down hierarchy of information with the majority of information contributed by experts or professionals. The network model, however, which is particularly aided and driven by the widespread popularity of the Internet, is characterised by the production of information by anyone and everyone and is published immediately. Networked social structures and constantly changing alternative sources of information and knowledge are typical of the network model.

References:

Flew, T. (2005). New Media: An Introduction (2nd ed.). Victoria: Oxford University Press.

The Impact of DIY Communities on Traditional Structures

DIY media encompasses the concept of produsage, which Bruns (2007, 3) describes as "the collaborative engagement of (ideally, large) communities of participants in a shared project". This is largely, and simply, based on the idea that 'two heads are better than one'. Produsage is built on the logic that, the community as a whole will be able to contribute a larger amount, and with more varied opinions, than that of a closed team of producers such as those in traditional structures (Bruns 2007, 3). Collaborative communities have no set agenda and could be considered self-organising communities, vastly different to commercial, hierarchical structured communities. Furthermore, participation isn't based on ownership, as is seen in most commercial communities, but rather is based on the merit and worth of the contributions that have been made by the user or participant.

There are various emerging forms of DIY media including:

• open source software development,
• online publishing, e.g. blogging, and open news (such as OhMyNews)
• media sharing, e.g. YouTube,
• knowledge management, e.g. Wikipedia, Del.ici.ous
• (Bruns 2007)
  

However, the rise of such DIY and collaborative communities can have a significant impact on the traditional methods of information-seeking and knowledge management. For example, open source software development undermines traditional software development (such as Windows) as it is a far more directly responsive to the needs and suggestions of users, and provides a far quicker response time. Traditional software development may often take up to a couple of years before user needs are met through the next edition of the software.

Another form of DIY media that is undermining the traditional forms is that of citizen journalism and DIY news. There still remains a few skeptical critics of citizen journalism, which I believe mainly arises from the question of whose opinion is reliable? How do we know who isn't just spinning a few yarns just for the sake of it? There are so many different opinions and views that are published on the Internet, that sometimes it becomes hard to sort through the clutter and find a trustworthy source. This is an idea touched on by Tom Merritt of CNET.com. But Merritt (2006) also suggests that this issue of trust also greatly surrounded the introduction of newspapers way back.

While this is one of the more guarded criticisms of citizen journalism, I believe citizen journalism also carries with it various advantages in comparison to traditional mainstream news coverage. Like many other DIY communities, I believe citizen journalism has been developed as a response to user needs. Mainstream news coverage has its shortcomings and has always remained such a biased, prejudiced and predisposed opinion on what the public needs to know. Perhaps the most obvious refute against this, is seen in the documentary "Outfoxed" which explores how Rupert Murdoch's Fox News has been "taking control of the public's right to know" (Outfoxed.org). I believe that citizen journalism puts everything out there because there is no set agenda or delegation of tasks; users are free to participate and add content at their own will which ultimately results in a broader selection of more alternative views. Nothing can really be covered up as the structure of online communities is naturally decentralised and self-organising.

Watch the Outfoxed trailer: (N.B. The whole documentary can be viewed in 9 segments via YouTube).



References:

Bruns, A. (2007). The Future is User-Led: The Path Towards Widespread Produsage. Retrieved April 22, 2008, from http://produsage.org/articles

Merritt, C. (2006). Citizen Journalism: Inside Information vs. Outside Perspective. Retrieved April 22, 2008, from http://www.cnet.com.au/software/internet/0,239029524,240061709,00.htm

Outfoxed. (n.d.). Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism. Retrieved April 22, 2008, from http://www.outfoxed.org/

Slashdot. (2006). Citizen Journalism Expert Jay Rosen Answers Your Questions. Retrieved April 22, 2008, from http://interviews.slashdot.org/interviews/06/10/03/1427254.shtml

Gregory, M. (2008). The End of Elite Liberal Media Empires and the Rise of Citizen Journalism. Retrieved April 30, 2008, from http://sadbastards.wordpress.com/

Changes in the New Media Audience

Web 2.0 sites have become the fastest growing category on the Internet (MediaPost Publications 2006). The increasing uptake of Web 2.0 has now also led to the blurring between the producer/consumer boundaries, leading to terms such as "viewsers, prosumers, DIY cultures, co-creators, user-generated content, participatory cultures, and produsers" (Bruns 2007). Users are now adding value to the network and many varied DIY communities are emerging. For example, online publishing via blogs, media sharing, information and knowledge management, and social networking are now important parts of Web 2.0 (Bruns 2007).

But do the changes that come with these new technologies lead to the emergence of an empowered, interactive audience? How is the relationship between this somewhat new audience and new media technologies, changing from the more traditional audience and their use of media?

I believe this new audience certainly envelopes a degree of empowerment that hasn’t ever been seen before. Today’s users are consuming media in a way that is completely unlike the behaviour of the more traditional audience decades ago. With new media, audiences have the ability to pretty much choose when and where they engage with media. This is vastly different to traditional broadcasting where TV shows are broadcast at a particular time, and the audience has to either be there to watch it, or they miss out. Now, audiences can download TV shows before they’re even broadcast, or use timeshifting programs, such as Foxtel IQ, which enables the audience to watch programs whenever they feel like it. I believe this has led to a new empowerment of the audience, i.e. they have more control and power over how they consume media.

This new audience also provides a challenge for marketers and seems to be slipping under the radar. New media viewing habits are being formed, i.e. it's not unusual to be involved with two or three media touchpoints at the one time. This provides a challenge for marketers as these new ways of interacting with media are not being adequately measured or tracked by the standard media measurements (theage.com.au, 2007).

Not only is this new audience elusive and hard to pin down, define, measure and manage, but DIY communities are also impacting on the traditional media. Blogging and open news sites that practice citizen journalism, for example ohmynews.com are undermining traditional news sources. Social networking sites such as MySpace and YouTube are becoming more popular for emerging musical artists, as they find more of a following online. These social network sites are now rivaling major record labels as artists can now build their fan bases online. Furthermore, audiences are turning to the Internet to download TV shows and movies well ahead of release dates, and this is also undermining traditional mainstream media.

All in all, I believe the changing new media environment is allowing for a more interactive, empowered audience.

References:

Bruns, A. (2007). Produsage: A Working Definition. Retrieved April 15, 2008, from http://produsage.org/produsage

MediaPost Publications. (2006). Web 2.0 Growing Faster than Online Video, News. Retrieved April 15, 2008, from http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.san&s=50754&Nid=24887&p=380828

TheAge.com. (2007). Dude, Where's My Audience? Retrieved April 15, 2008, from http://www.theage.com.au/news/web/dude-wheres-my-audience/2007/07/24/1185043119701.html?page=fullpage

Online vs Offline Communities

Online and offline worlds often overlap, but are generally quite different to one another. They generate different cultures and the way they organise themselves seems to be quite different. Although they do overlap and may share similar qualities, there are characteristics of online communities that seem vastly different to characteristics of a "real world" geographical community.

Online communities foster a world that is independent of physical or geographical location or identity. A user can become a part of an online community, irrespective of their own personal or physical qualities. They are free from physical judgement, they are judged only on their contributions that they can choose themselves to publish or not. The rise of the networked environment and cultural diversity allows for the creation of many varied niche cultures and interests to develop through online communities. Online communities, therefore, allows for collaboration amongst other people of similar interests to yourself. They can collect and share information that may be of interest to other people in a similar interest group. The rise of the participatory culture (Jenkins 2006) means that users can be active participators in the online world, regardless of the time of day, or geographical location. Jenkins describes this participatory culture as one that is created by users who are connected through a multitude of local and hyperlocal cultural communities.

Shenton and McNeeley (cited in Flew 2005, 69) sum the above idea up perfectly by arguing that virtual communities have become so popular because of the following reasons:

• Online communities provide an easier opportunity to develop friendships with people, compared to the offline world.
• Online communities allows for the ability to interchange and play with personas and different identities.
• Online communities allows interaction with like-minded people.
• Online communities allow people to find others with shared interests, even obscure or odd interests that may be a niche or minority group.
• Online communities allow people who may feel discriminated against, or marginalised in society, to express their opinions and point of views.

Personally, I find online communities useful because you can contribute to them as often or as little as you like. When I don't have time or when I have something else to do that I believe is more important at the time, then I may not contribute as much. And this doesn't matter in an online community. However, if you're involved in an offline community you're expected to be committed to that community.

However, after having said all this, I believe there are still some challenges for online communities. The vast network of information can sometimes be overwhelming. We're constantly exposed to an abundance of information in the online world. With an increasing number of content creators contributing to the networked environment it sometimes becomes hard to decipher the reliable sources that are trustworthy and credible. Some information can become confusing and contradictory.

References:

Flew, T. (2005). New Media: An Introduction (2nd ed.). Victoria: Oxford University Press.

Jenkins, Henry. (2006). Introduction: “Worship at the Altar of Convergence" in Jenkins, Henry, Convergence culture: When new and old media collide, New York: New Yoork University, pp.1-24. Retrieved April 7, 2008, from Queensland University of Technology Course Materials Database https://qutvirtual.qut.edu.au/portal/pls/portal/olt_material_search_p?p_unit_code=KCB201