May 30, 2008 at 15:36Five principles of successful mass cooperation, p3
- Transfer
A follow-up to Charles Leadbether’s article on linux.com on the role of the community in content creation.
Five principles of successful maso cooperation, part 3.
Original article www.linux.com/feature/130025
Author Charles Leadbeater www.wethinkthebook.net/home.aspx
(Translator's comments written as explanations of the author's text are in brackets)
Successful project We -Think (We Think) is based on five key principles. Previously, three principles were introduced; here are the last two.
This article is an extract from the recently published book “We Think: The Power of Mass Creativity” www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/asin/1861978928/vasoft-20
Collaboration
Mass contributions from community representatives are nothing if together they do not create something ordered (expected) and complex. The encyclopedia is not a collection of random random someone's individual contributions; it is a structured accounting or amount of knowledge. People playing a game or building a community need common rules governing them, otherwise chaos will ensue. How to make a community project We-Think with self-government without a clear responsible hierarchy that enforces these laws? This requirement is not so much technical as political. The We Think project works only when responsible self-government exists, and this is a particularly difficult thing to achieve in very diverse communities.
Often people think differently (in different directions) because they have very different values; these differences matter. The one who sees the world through art and images will be dominated by such skills as drawing and painting, this will simplify his work.
Anyone who sees the world in numbers and money will be more preferable as an accountant who will use a calculator rather than an easel. A large set of tools, which includes a calculator and an easel, as well as creative and accountants, is good for innovation.
The problem is that people with fundamentally different values often find it difficult to agree on exactly what they should do and why. Different ways of thinking are essential for innovation; different values are based on differences in what matters to us, this often leads to quarrels. That is why diverse communities often find it difficult to agree on how to create public goods such as health, charity, and social housing. Different groups can become very unproductive when their differences suppress, provoke conflicts over resources and goals. Elinor Ostrom discovered that public places (meaning shared resources) for fisheries, forests, and irrigation systems require effective self-government and local on-site monitoring by participants to make sure
When local government collapses, then the community collapses and no innovation is possible.
The We Think project is successful thanks to the creation of self-government in communities
who make the most of their diverse knowledge without being overwhelmed by their differences. This is only possible if these communities are united around a simple life-giving goal, if they develop legitimate ways to consider and sort ideas, and if they have the right kind of management. Whatever they are, these communities are egalitarian (based on equality) self-governing democracies.
As an example, consider the open source community that produces the Ubuntu distribution, a user-friendly version of Linux.
Mark Shuttleworth, the founder of Ubuntu, looks like a benevolent dictator, he makes some decisions on his own, such as the look of the Ubuntu website. The essence and foundation of the entire Ubuntu development community is a technical forum, an online meeting place for setting technical standards and determining what should be included in various versions of programs. The decisions that are made on this forum are clear and open: anyone can offer additions or changes to the policy (development of the distribution kit) through the Ubuntu wiki; The forum agenda is available on the wiki every two weeks. And everyone can attend the online discussion as an observer. In the end, decisions are made by Shuttleworth and four other members of the forum from those specially appointed for this.
Meanwhile, individual Ubuntu community meetings are engaged in the social structure of the community, the creation of new projects and on designated leaders of teams that are engaged in supporting various releases (releases) of the distribution and features and capabilities of programs, for example, for users of desktop computers or laptops. For example, the LoCo team, which is engaged in the promotion and promotion of Ubuntu around the world. Anyone can become a member of the Ubuntu community by writing programs, creating and maintaining up-to-date documentation, investing in graphic design, or simply starting to promote Ubuntu. By mid-2007, the core of the Ubuntu community totaled 283 people.
The Ubuntu lesson, which is still far from proven (i.e., perfect) success, is to effectively manage a creative (creative) community whose structure resembles a grid. Decision making is open: everyone can see what exactly is being decided and how; anyone can offer something of their own about what needs to be done. But decisions themselves are rarely made democratically. Ubuntu is perhaps an open source product, but the community that supports it is far from complete openness. This is not at all like the utopian communes of the 1960s, which show why they could be more successful than cooperatives of the past.
Creation (creation)
The We Think project allows mass social creativity that thrives when many participants with different views and skills, with the ability to think independently and have tools for contribution (creating something) that are united by a common goal. If the participants are distributed, then they should have a way to share <with others their achievements>, combine them and connect a common goal for the benefit of a common cause.
However, most of the time, participants can work independently and in parallel, often processing elements of the core (core) of the central product, as well as an epic poem of the Ancient Greeks, a piece of genetic code, a modern software update or an encyclopedia. The product develops thanks to the increase and the process of mutual criticism, support and imitation, inheritance (ideas, code). Most people do this because they enjoy substantial activity and seek recognition for their contribution to the project. Such communities should have places for meetings and communication - forms, websites, festivals, newspapers, magazines, where people can publish and share ideas. Social creativity is not free for everyone; it represents the highest structuredness. In addition, the boundaries between expert and amateur, viewer and performer, user and developer can be erased. More permanent in the community are those who rely on the history and quality of their investments (developments), thus forming a form of a kind of tightly intertwined, networked professional aristocracy. Without effective self-government of social creativity, a collapse (community) ensues: decisions must be made about what should be included in the source code, published on the website, news headlines (top news list). Members who do not obey the rules adopted in the community should be immediately excluded from it. They must respect community decisions. in this way a form of a kind of tightly intertwined, networked professional aristocracy is taking shape. Without effective self-government of social creativity, a collapse (community) ensues: decisions must be made about what should be included in the source code, published on the website, news headlines (top news list). Members who do not obey the rules adopted in the community should be immediately excluded from it. They must respect community decisions. in this way a form of a kind of tightly intertwined, networked professional aristocracy is taking shape. Without effective self-government of social creativity, a collapse (community) ensues: decisions must be made about what should be included in the source code, published on the website, news headlines (top news list). Members who do not obey the rules adopted in the community should be immediately excluded from it. They must respect community decisions. accepted by the community should be immediately expelled from it. They must respect community decisions. accepted by the community should be immediately expelled from it. They must respect community decisions.
The raw material obtained through cooperation is a creative product (in the original article - talent), which is very unstable, changeable. People think well and in different ways, in different directions. It is difficult to say from the side, for example, using time-and-motion research, who is more effective creative (worker). It is impossible to draw up a job description with a detailed description of what a creative (employee) should do, what ideas should be created by him and when. Open source communities solve the difficulties of managing creative activity by decentralizing the creation of solutions for small groups of those who decide what needs to be worked on, depending on what and what needs to be done, given the nature of their skills. It is very difficult for everyone to organize, but the path will soon become known.
When this works, the evaluation from the side is distinguished by its availability in sharing ideas and maintaining the quality of the product at low cost.
Five principles of successful maso cooperation, part 3.
Original article www.linux.com/feature/130025
Author Charles Leadbeater www.wethinkthebook.net/home.aspx
(Translator's comments written as explanations of the author's text are in brackets)
Successful project We -Think (We Think) is based on five key principles. Previously, three principles were introduced; here are the last two.
This article is an extract from the recently published book “We Think: The Power of Mass Creativity” www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/asin/1861978928/vasoft-20
Collaboration
Mass contributions from community representatives are nothing if together they do not create something ordered (expected) and complex. The encyclopedia is not a collection of random random someone's individual contributions; it is a structured accounting or amount of knowledge. People playing a game or building a community need common rules governing them, otherwise chaos will ensue. How to make a community project We-Think with self-government without a clear responsible hierarchy that enforces these laws? This requirement is not so much technical as political. The We Think project works only when responsible self-government exists, and this is a particularly difficult thing to achieve in very diverse communities.
Often people think differently (in different directions) because they have very different values; these differences matter. The one who sees the world through art and images will be dominated by such skills as drawing and painting, this will simplify his work.
Anyone who sees the world in numbers and money will be more preferable as an accountant who will use a calculator rather than an easel. A large set of tools, which includes a calculator and an easel, as well as creative and accountants, is good for innovation.
The problem is that people with fundamentally different values often find it difficult to agree on exactly what they should do and why. Different ways of thinking are essential for innovation; different values are based on differences in what matters to us, this often leads to quarrels. That is why diverse communities often find it difficult to agree on how to create public goods such as health, charity, and social housing. Different groups can become very unproductive when their differences suppress, provoke conflicts over resources and goals. Elinor Ostrom discovered that public places (meaning shared resources) for fisheries, forests, and irrigation systems require effective self-government and local on-site monitoring by participants to make sure
When local government collapses, then the community collapses and no innovation is possible.
The We Think project is successful thanks to the creation of self-government in communities
who make the most of their diverse knowledge without being overwhelmed by their differences. This is only possible if these communities are united around a simple life-giving goal, if they develop legitimate ways to consider and sort ideas, and if they have the right kind of management. Whatever they are, these communities are egalitarian (based on equality) self-governing democracies.
As an example, consider the open source community that produces the Ubuntu distribution, a user-friendly version of Linux.
Mark Shuttleworth, the founder of Ubuntu, looks like a benevolent dictator, he makes some decisions on his own, such as the look of the Ubuntu website. The essence and foundation of the entire Ubuntu development community is a technical forum, an online meeting place for setting technical standards and determining what should be included in various versions of programs. The decisions that are made on this forum are clear and open: anyone can offer additions or changes to the policy (development of the distribution kit) through the Ubuntu wiki; The forum agenda is available on the wiki every two weeks. And everyone can attend the online discussion as an observer. In the end, decisions are made by Shuttleworth and four other members of the forum from those specially appointed for this.
Meanwhile, individual Ubuntu community meetings are engaged in the social structure of the community, the creation of new projects and on designated leaders of teams that are engaged in supporting various releases (releases) of the distribution and features and capabilities of programs, for example, for users of desktop computers or laptops. For example, the LoCo team, which is engaged in the promotion and promotion of Ubuntu around the world. Anyone can become a member of the Ubuntu community by writing programs, creating and maintaining up-to-date documentation, investing in graphic design, or simply starting to promote Ubuntu. By mid-2007, the core of the Ubuntu community totaled 283 people.
The Ubuntu lesson, which is still far from proven (i.e., perfect) success, is to effectively manage a creative (creative) community whose structure resembles a grid. Decision making is open: everyone can see what exactly is being decided and how; anyone can offer something of their own about what needs to be done. But decisions themselves are rarely made democratically. Ubuntu is perhaps an open source product, but the community that supports it is far from complete openness. This is not at all like the utopian communes of the 1960s, which show why they could be more successful than cooperatives of the past.
Creation (creation)
The We Think project allows mass social creativity that thrives when many participants with different views and skills, with the ability to think independently and have tools for contribution (creating something) that are united by a common goal. If the participants are distributed, then they should have a way to share <with others their achievements>, combine them and connect a common goal for the benefit of a common cause.
However, most of the time, participants can work independently and in parallel, often processing elements of the core (core) of the central product, as well as an epic poem of the Ancient Greeks, a piece of genetic code, a modern software update or an encyclopedia. The product develops thanks to the increase and the process of mutual criticism, support and imitation, inheritance (ideas, code). Most people do this because they enjoy substantial activity and seek recognition for their contribution to the project. Such communities should have places for meetings and communication - forms, websites, festivals, newspapers, magazines, where people can publish and share ideas. Social creativity is not free for everyone; it represents the highest structuredness. In addition, the boundaries between expert and amateur, viewer and performer, user and developer can be erased. More permanent in the community are those who rely on the history and quality of their investments (developments), thus forming a form of a kind of tightly intertwined, networked professional aristocracy. Without effective self-government of social creativity, a collapse (community) ensues: decisions must be made about what should be included in the source code, published on the website, news headlines (top news list). Members who do not obey the rules adopted in the community should be immediately excluded from it. They must respect community decisions. in this way a form of a kind of tightly intertwined, networked professional aristocracy is taking shape. Without effective self-government of social creativity, a collapse (community) ensues: decisions must be made about what should be included in the source code, published on the website, news headlines (top news list). Members who do not obey the rules adopted in the community should be immediately excluded from it. They must respect community decisions. in this way a form of a kind of tightly intertwined, networked professional aristocracy is taking shape. Without effective self-government of social creativity, a collapse (community) ensues: decisions must be made about what should be included in the source code, published on the website, news headlines (top news list). Members who do not obey the rules adopted in the community should be immediately excluded from it. They must respect community decisions. accepted by the community should be immediately expelled from it. They must respect community decisions. accepted by the community should be immediately expelled from it. They must respect community decisions.
The raw material obtained through cooperation is a creative product (in the original article - talent), which is very unstable, changeable. People think well and in different ways, in different directions. It is difficult to say from the side, for example, using time-and-motion research, who is more effective creative (worker). It is impossible to draw up a job description with a detailed description of what a creative (employee) should do, what ideas should be created by him and when. Open source communities solve the difficulties of managing creative activity by decentralizing the creation of solutions for small groups of those who decide what needs to be worked on, depending on what and what needs to be done, given the nature of their skills. It is very difficult for everyone to organize, but the path will soon become known.
When this works, the evaluation from the side is distinguished by its availability in sharing ideas and maintaining the quality of the product at low cost.