User-generated content & emergent networks.

Why study user-generated content and emergent networks? Open source has many segments. – All have novel intellectual property licensing. – A range of distinct approaches & experiments in the context of business & non-business goals. – Exciting, but easy to be confused. “Emergent networks” as a topic onto itself. – Distinguish b/w sponsored projects w/commercial goals (e.g., You-Tube, Facebook, many Web2.0 sites) & unsponsored ones w/less commercial goals (e.g., Wikipedia, Linux in its earliest life). Today focus on latter. – Why examine Wikipedia? Many open source project cannot be appreciated without examining a complex code base. In contrast, Wikipedia is accessible. Thus, it offers first step into developing an understanding.

Game Plan A primer on novel intellectual property licensing. – What everyone has in common: copyleft. A primer on the similarities/differences b/w sponsored and emergent. The landscape for user-generated content. – How Wikipedia fits in. – Where Wikipedia innovated. Wikipedia. – How it works. – Why it is controversial. – Where to go from here.

A primer on novel Intellectual Property

Has anyone here ever participated in an open source project? Which Open source project? – In what role? – Using what licensing arrangement? Emergent network, such as Linux, Wikipedia or Firefox? – In what role? – What were the licensing arrangements? How about a sponsored Web2.0 project, such as Facebook, Flickr, and so on? – What were the licensing arrangements?

Where did it come from?… a movement became pragmatic Starts as “free” software: eliminate software lock-in. – Did not want private versions of code. – Strong reaction to commercial software. – “Think of free speech, not free beer”  “ Libre”… – Goal: free as in freedom and unrestricted. “Open source” comes along: making money is OK – Roots go back to pragmatism in many academic projects. – “Open source” coined in 1998 to be more business friendly – Goal: get software adopted, change the world. Today there are two groups. Comparable to cousins in a family. The pragmatists have become larger over time as business uses for their ideas spread. – They all agree on one thing: they despise Microsoft.

A summary of the differences today Free software movementOpen source movement Primary Goal“Software freedom”Widespread adoption Control and choiceKey goal in itselfMeans to an ends Better quality software and support Not emphasizedClaim this is benefit of open vs. proprietary source Low cost “Think free speech, not free beer” Not emphasized Self perceptionsTrue believers, puristsPragmatic evangelists Favorite enemyMicrosoft, AT&TMicrosoft SpokespersonRichard StallmanEric Raymond, Linus Torvalds, Larry Lessig, Brian Behlendorf, Jimbo Wales, IBM, Red Hat, MySQL, SUN, Firefox…

What they have in common: Open source licensing Requirements for all “open source” licenses – Provide source code. – Allow modification & remixing of code. – Free redistribution of (un)modified code. – Use of code independent of product. Any “free software” license is open source – Lots of variety in the specific attributes in the license…(more coming)… – See list of approved licenses at Open Source Initiative…. – Has anyone written for one of these?

Often encountered as “Copyleft” If your derivative works incorporate copyleft code, you must: – Distribute your source with the code; or – Post the code publicly (e.g. to a website); or – Offer to send a copy to any buyers. For example, Linksys posted to a website the modified Linux used in their routers Different flavors: Requirements to share fixes, share modifications, share patents. – General Public License (GPL) is most common. Many variants with slightly different modification rights, reuse rights, etc. – If you want the detail, plenty about it online.

Creative Commons has similar motives Copyright law for media not same as a software license for software code. – Go ask a lawyer why. Something to do w/the legal difference between a code base and text and image. Inspired by open source (& for other reasons) a group of activists started creative commons. – Tailored to permit reuse of media, text, pictures, sound, etc., by parties other than author… not “fair use” defaults. – Give permission for commercial use, for modification, w/or w/o attribution, & combinations. For specific jurisdiction. – See – Many web-based places where users post content (e.g., many community blogs, flickr, etc.) use CC licenses.

Summary Emergent communities rely on similar and novel form of intellectual property licensing. – Started from idealistic origins, still evolving today. – Ending exclusive rights to view code. Facilitate legal framework for sharing and mixing of code/words with other contributors. Many untested legal foundations. Still growing. – History casts a shadow. Originators do not like how others evolved their ideas. Still debate. – Even the pragmatists are not sure what works.

A primer on the similarities/difference between sponsored and emergent

Governance in open source communities Most emergent networks are independent communities that use copy-left principles – Founded by individuals w/range of motives. – Self-governing (vary in level of democracy, in extent of use of meritocracy, in ease of joining, etc) – Examples: Early Linux, Early Apache, Wikipedia Sponsored communities – Founded by an organization, commercial motives. – Sponsoring firm retains special rights (vary in strategic goals, in use of business models, etc.). – Increasingly common. Many venture funded. Many converts from proprietary commercial software. – Examples: Later Linux, MySQL, You-Tube, Flickr, most Web2.0.

Will focus on left-hand side of table today…. Emergent communities.Sponsored communities (with or without commercial motives). Limited participation.Many listserves, many blogs. Project Guttenberg… Mixed models…Early Linux, Early Apache, Firefox …(limited club of contributors). MySQL, later Linux, later Apache, some Web 2.0… Minimal limits on contributors. Inviting mass participation. Wikipedia, Wikia, many blogs… YouTube, Flickr, many blogs, many Web2.0….

Pieces of emerging communities Interpreting Linus’ law – What does this mean? Governance of participation – How organizers think of coordinating “bottom up.” Power laws and other policies for participation – How participation goes from narrow to wide. Virtual cycles. – Success breeds success.

It starts with Linus’ Law What Linus Torvald said: – “Given a large enough beta-test and code- developer base, almost every problem will be characterized quickly and the fix obvious to someone.” Eric Raymond coined a popular rendition… – “Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.” Ever since… Competing interpretations about what this means and the range of settings to which the principle applies.

Examples of Raymond’s writing

Linus’ Law: accumulating new ideas or investments or both? Linus Torvald’s approach to Linux: Create & nurture sense of ownership & responsibility over pieces. – Create modular pieces that others find attractive. – Remain open to suggestions. Programmers have “itches they like to scratch.” – Center’s role: Dividing up problems, settling disputes as they arise, coordinating the stitching together, releasing the betas, endorsing final releases. Most obvious drawback? – Taking out the trash to please a paying customer. – What else?

Linus Law interpreted in two ways. Notice the difference. Accumulating ideas (about building s/w): – What is the best way to accumulate ideas about how to create a new piece of software? – Sampling ideas from a wide base. “Reduce the role of the single software expert.” Spread it around. Accumulating investment (which does not deteriorate due to wear & tear): – What is the best way to accumulate the investments in pieces of code that make up a new piece of software? – Gathering investments from a wide base. “Reduce the role of command from above.” Make room for variety of ideas.

Consider importance of governance of participation Example of organization doing innovation Breaking anew frontier (build a new work station OS from scratch). Performance at a major upgrade (combine patches to OS). Performance at building an incremental add-on (a new app). Command and control from above Military or very hierarchical company. Federation of independent teams Voluntary consortium among firms. Bottom up sampling from many corners On-line community among friends.

Wikipedia took Linus’ Law in new direction Jimbo Wales’ key insight: make site and its code accommodate both insiders & tourists – Need one type of code for those who do a lot. Make their roles easier to perform. – Need quite different type of code for a large group where each does a little. Ease of use matters. – Might get best of both worlds? Inherently difficult to get right: – A bit like establishing a club involving personalities from early/late majority & early adopter/innovator and asking them to get along. – Why else is it difficult?

Wale’s example accelerated discussions about “power laws.” – Rule of thumb: “90 – 9 – 1 rule-of-thumb.” – 1% of participants provide a third of content (or effort), 9% another third, & 90% last third. – Except that there is no steadfast rule-of-thumb. – Shorthand: Vast majority of participants contribute once, while a small group does most of the work, provides the culture, keeps it going. – Open question: – Could be , or – 5 – Probably not – Definitely not

A digression about power laws A power law is a mathematical description for a distribution. – Comes in many skewed shapes. – Applies to a wide range of measurable Internet behaviors (both in & out of emergent communities). – Many web-watchers think these are cool… Why it really matters: – Informs traffic management of “bursty” data… – Improving service in money making community… – Why else?

Wikipedia illustrated one other principle: Harness a virtual cycle Increasing participation has pragmatic benefit – Morphed into numerous sub-laws on how value of participation improves w/more participation… Virtual cycle gets going… – More users  more eyes  more extensions  more adoption and users  more extensions…. – A form of network effect among heterogeneous users/producers: Whole grows into greater than sum of any contribution… Many Web 2.0 models trying variations… – Different models for aggregating content… – Different models for harnessing social networks… – Different models for aggregating ideas (recommendations mostly)… – And on and on…

Questions about participation spilled into many Web 2.0 models

Summary Most emergent communities rely on a similar underlying general framework. – Finding ways to get a large set of participants and a few hard core enthusiasts work towards the same goals in cyber community. – Relies on an intuitive (though largely untested) set of observations about wisdom of participation. – Some (seemingly) useful mathematical support. Many open questions about governance and circumstances over which its works.

Wikipedia in 2006

We examine the organization in summer of 2006 It was a good year. – Jimbo Wales has been named one of the 100 most influential people on the Web. – Becomes top twenty most visited site on the web. – Mass market media coverage explodes: articles in every major news magazine & newspaper. How does it work? – Myths, fact and misunderstandings. – Process. Why is it controversial? Are there any general lessons about OSS?

History Founded by Jimmy “Jimbo” Wales in 2001 – Tried to start an on-line encyclopedia called Nupedia, but this failed. – Adapted a Wiki format & it exploded. – Free encyclopedia to which anyone can contribute. Not for profit. – Wikimedia Foundation started in – Donations more than cover costs. – Two paid employees in Enormous growth. – 1.3 million articles in English by summer of ’06. Surpasses 2 million in fall of 07, reached 2.6 this fall. – In fall 08: 820K in German, 720K in French, etc… European languages majority of entries, but beginning to grow outside these…

What is a Wiki? What does Wiki mean? – Why for this use? How the software works. – Restrictions on participation. – Editing. – History pages. – Recent changes. – Search functions. What/who is a Wikipedian?

Norms A shared belief in Linus’ law, “Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.” – The more it is reviewed the better it gets. Neutral point of view. – Assert facts about opinions, but not opinions themselves. Verifiability – Against a reliable peer-reviewed source. Not original research. – Previously published by reputable source. – No novel historical interpretations.

Why it works Because it works for Wikipedians & many participants. – Committed effort. Why do they do it? Wiki etiquette. – Good faith. Civility. Discussion. Dispute resolution. Consensus & monitoring. – Automated notice for contributors. – Encouraging use of citations. – How to encourage good behavior? Fostering the virtual cycle. – Personal satisfaction contributing. – Friendship and teamwork, Moving to new projects. – Allowing for multiple entries from many sources. – Tough minded editors who clean up. – What else?

Contrasts with traditional encyclopedia Sources for authoritative text. – “Self-selected” editors & contributors instead of experts. – Guarding against junk science. Topic selection. – Who assigns responsibility? Consensus as arbiter? Framing passages. – Editors enforce consistency. Forming the index for the whole. Tone and presentation. – One expert author v. contributions from all corners – melded by editors, others? – Emphasis on surprises, quirks, novelties, populism. What else?

Challenges and controversy Scope of coverage – Celebrities. Historical and fictional figures. Geek priorities. – Does it matter? Factual correctness. – Unchecked facts in historical biographies. – What is truthiness when code is not tested? – Who is responsible/accountable for error/defamation? – Use in court proceedings? A neutral point of view for everything? – Religious figures. Controversial people. Politicians. – Horrific historical events. Pretension, ambition, hyperbole – Personal vindictiveness by editors. – What are the limits of the hyperbole? What else?

How to grow? Open versus clean. – Inviting new entry. Training new contributors in wiki ettiquite – Vanity entries. Destructive vandals. – When it is not done it can be wrong. Who is responsible? – When authorities get interested (e.g., Chinese censorship, Argentine dirty war, Congressional staff). How far to extend the wiki concept? – Over 100 languages. – Wikiquotes, wiktionary, wikibooks, wikispecies, etc. Supporting the broad community – Conferences. On line governance For-profit spin-offs?

Epilogue to case: continuing growth Expansion of range of Wikipedia – Wapedia for mobile devices, – Placeopedia for mashups for location information for articles, – Wikirage (what’s hot), – Wikiscanner (sniffing out self-interested anonymous edits) – Wikipedia selection for schools (SOS charity)… For profit Wikis… – Wikia. Jimbo Wales $4m launch, begun in Advertising supported. – Social Text. Facilitate collaboration inside enterprises w/Wikis… – Lots more… Proliferation of new applications… – What have you seen?

Broad lessons continued: emergent communities do not just emerge Somebody w/a clear focus breaks project into component parts and/or reassembles them. – Torvalds at Linux in the early days, Belendorf & friends at Apache, Jimbo Wales at Wikipedia… Compelling motive for widespread participation. – Motives often not commercial. – Blending programmer culture, on-line web culture. – Why do you participate? Lightning in a bottle. Hard to capture, replicate. – Some sponsored communities have succeeded, but many have not. – Why? Why not? Big open question: What else does it depend on?

Managerial cool down

New modes for product development? In electronics the business world has become one where firms depend on external innovativeness. – Firms who rely solely on in-house capabilities run the risk of being too costly compared to those who rely on large community of users/testers. There are different models of how to manage these external innovative relationships. – A major managerial dilemma for the next decade. Firms who figure out how to manage OSS will have something distinctive.