[wos] Re: Web 2.0

[tt at cut3.com]

hi volker and list,


> 
> 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.

archive.org is a very good example. the problem is that is doesn’t work. 
my experience (about 3 month ago): no chance with the ccpublisher
<http://creativecommons.org/tools/ccpublisher>. only server timeouts. in the
end i managed to upload one file after trying a lot of times, via ftp. (that
means laborious tagging, no chance to use cc-at licences, and so on.)

one can hope that the contribution the european public sector will provide
here is useful, but one can also imagine what the public sector will not
provide. to me, that shows how pressing it is to look into the field of
“unclean” environments. practically, it’s, for the time being, simply the
only place to go for the majority of people that want to share, in one way
or the other. proprietary platforms are the only places they have access to,
that serve their needs.

to make this point clear. i am not arguing for the weakening of standards. i
think one has to stay firm in assessing what is “free” and “open”, and what
is not. i just think, concepts are developed enough, to take a more explicit
stand. 

archive.org is a great and important project. but many people use flikr to
make their photos accessible under a creative commons licence. so it is
important to look at platforms like flikr, even one has legitimate doubts.
it’s important to clearly argue what this doubts are, and how people should
act in the given environment. and that is what wos4 could also do, while
still keeping a more scientific core.


> > 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?

yes, definitely a interesting panel. but it still misses the practical point
of view. how should ordinary people behave, that want to share their content
in one way or the other? or in a broader sense, how to we deal with the
reality out there? and avoid a sectarian position. i just think, its time to
“go public”.

following janko my favourite subtitle for wos4 would be

“platforms of sharing” 

or to avoid associations with “filesharing platform”

“platforms for collaboration”.

ng thomas