[wos] Re: Web 2.0

[Volker Grassmuck]

On 18 Mar 2006 at 16:03, tt at cut3.com wrote:

> > I think you misunderstood what I was saying - that social software gets
> > collapsed into the shitfest of Web/Where 2.0 by means of the hybrid
> > economic models forming around these bubbles. But maybe you're right -
> > it's kind of boring.
> > 
> 
> i do not think this is boring, if you look on how content is created, that
> is free to use for everyone. in the 90s a lot of content that people created
> got lost. because platforms got commercial and tried strange ways to make
> profit out of collective content, because platforms were sold to companies
> that neglected them or just shut them down. 

Thomas, I have the feeling this could be an issue on an open archives 
/ repositories panel. Archive.org is a grass roots response to the 
danger of proprietarisation. Now, the public infrastructure is taking 
up the task with digital libraries, mandatory deposits of web content 
etc.

> but there is still a lot of the 90th stuff out there, and gives good service
> to the people that contribute. i use game and travel forums, platforms that
> compare and evaluate hardware or the dic at leo.org for example. 
> 
> but times have chanced. we have free licences, there is more awareness on
> open standards, (or at least the use of semi free de facto standards like
> .pdf and .mp3).
> 
> flikr for example is a mighty tool to store cc licensed material. (3,2
> million photos for all licences at http://www.flickr.com/creativecommons/.)
> that does not mean we don’t need the Wikimedia Commons (480 000 files
> pictures and everything else, but sure much more relevant.) but i think
> hybrid projects can contribute a lot, in creating free content and making it
> accessible.
> 
> so i think wos4 could maybe revisit what happened in the 90s, investigate
> what is left of commercial ore other projects, that used and use some sorts
> of social software or process. what social processes are possible in
> "unclean" environment, that can disappear ore get locked over night? what
> did survive and why? and what does this mean in the light of the web 2.0
> hype? how big are chances that for example flikr gets shut down or closed
> over night and al the cced images are lost? and how can we pressure for the
> free and open? 

Well, Erik mentioned another stategy: copying free material from a 
not-so-future-proof platform to one that is:

> Perhaps of interest in this context is a little project of mine to
> select the best Creative Commons (CC-BY or CC-BY-SA) material from
> Flickr and upload it to Wikimedia Commons:
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:FlickrLickr
> 
> So far we've reviewed over 50,000 images and uploaded nearly 5,000 to
> Wikimedia. In a way, we're forking a subset of Flickr (sans most of the
> cat photos) -- and keeping Flickr honest in the process.


I see a cluster emerging here. Something like this:

"grass-roots, public and commercial repositories"

Wikimedia

http://creativearchive.bbc.co.uk

Stewart Butterfield from Flickr

Google Print vs. Open Content Alliance (Brewster Kahle + Yahoo + HP + Adobe) vs. EU project.
http://www.theeuropeanlibrary.org/

Library of Alexandria 


What do you think?

Volker


> ng thomas
> -- 
> Wos mailing list
> Wos at post.openoffice.de
> http://212.42.230.8/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/wos


-- 
   iRights           http://iRights.info
   WOS             http://wizards-of-os.org
   copy = right    http://privatkopie.net
   home:   http://waste.informatik.hu-berlin.de/Grassmuck