[FC-discuss] Is disorder is a strength in open culture?

[Samuel Klein]

 'Disorder' may make for a catchier project title, but 'low barrier to
entry' may be more appropriate.   'Illegal and irregular' implies a
shared context of law and standards.  'Minimal legal overhead' and
'highly heterogenous' says the same thing with less spin.

SJ

On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 3:16 PM, Christian Villum <villum at autofunk.dk> wrote:
> Science question: I am researching disorder in open culture (open culture
> defined as referring to the actors, practices and produce that constitute an
> environment of open sharing, prosumerism, copyright liberalization activism
> and collaborative development work).
>
> My hypothesis is that the immanent and ubiquitous disorder (unstable,
> autonomous, illegal, unpaid and irregular practices) is a most significant
> part of what makes open culture vibrant, dynamic, innovative, productive and
> even at times what makes it competitive (compared to similar
> conventional/proprietary/controlled/corporate practices). In other words,
> that this disorder is a strength in the open culture, not a flaw. Do you
> agree? Disagree? Why and why not?
>
> Secondly, I am looking for particular examples from open culture where
> disorder is appearant.
>
> Thank you,
> Christian
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at freeculture.org
> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>