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

[Asheesh Laroia]

On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, Christian Villum 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.

So this question is pretty flamebait-y for FC-Discuss, which 
generally stays on the "legal" side rather than the illegal.

But a few thoughts:

* Windows Mobile and Apple iPhone hacking groups seem to relish legal 
uncertainty of their position. I think that having a *fight* really helps 
these groups gather enthusiasm.

* "Irregular" practices could mean either (a) rapidly-changing or (b) 
unusual. If it means (b) then it's only "irregular" from your perspective. 
For example, IRC chat is considered "irregular" by most Internet 
users these days. Yes, Free Software geeks take some pride in their use of 
a historic but today-obscure protocol.

* Your willingenss to call "unpaid" work evidence of "disorder" 
is strange, at best.

Take a look at the emergence of freeculture.org chapters, Hackerspaces, 
the co-working groups, and the Maker community and you'll see that the 
human beings who participate in open culture find order useful. It's a 
balancing act. Check out the history of Students for Free Culture. It 
started out as ad-hoc and disorderly (even possibly illegal -- we won OPG 
v. Diebold, but we could have lost the case). Today it's so 
institutionalized we have sponsorship and (I think) a legal entity. There 
are efficiencies that organization can provide, and open culture groups 
are no exception.

The Internet itself is "disorderly", but it appears calm to users. You 
only see the disorder when (for example) an ISP in Pakistan breaks YouTube 
for much of the rest of the world by fiddling with the routing tables the 
whole world uses. (see http://blogs.zdnet.com/threatchaos/?p=548 and 
http://www.circleid.com/posts/82258_pakistan_hijacks_youtube_closer_look )

Generally, I think your question doesn't show clear thinking or good 
understanding of the communities we'd call open culture ones. That, or 
it's bizarrely vague. The answer lies in the specifics and your 
perspective.

But there are some thoughts.

-- Asheesh.

-- 
All most people want is a little more than they'll ever get.