As my course went on, discussion continued to centre around the intangible. ‘Creation’ was a concept that applied only to knowledge. Practical application of the concepts and knowledge learnt in the previous three years meant acquiring more knowledge, about companies existing in the Brisbane media industry, and compiling this on a website. Again, the website was simply used as a portal to find information about such topics. Still, nothing tangible. By this point in time, however, I had forgotten my earlier curiosity at this recurring phenomenon.

To me, the concept of ‘produsage’ seems largely theoretical. In theory, it is undeniably beneficial to have consumers play a hand in the media that they consume. The possibility for expansion of a global knowledge is increased massively, proportionate to the scale of informed contributors. But what does all of this mean for society? HOW is this knowledge useful, if there is no application for it in the ‘real world.’ Bruns argues that this shared scope of knowledge can be of use in practical fields such as construction. A designer somewhere comes up with a model for a car or a bridge, and a mechanic or an engineer on the other side of the world puts it together. This takes away the costs of bringing the top professionals from their respective fields physically together, and allows for superior products to be assembled at a fraction of the price such a product would have previously cost. Again, in theory, this idea is fantastic. However, it proves to be pretty impractical.

A good friend of mine is currently completing her final thesis in a civil engineering degree. It stands to reason that, while at university, this would be the time that she would be exposed to concepts such as the one outlined above. However she has never heard of such practice, and was wary when I asked what she thought of it. The safety implications alone would be astounding. It stands to reason that safe construction would be difficult to achieve without the designer, who would have had to have think of risks in the design process, overseeing the construction phase first-hand.

While that may be a bit of an exaggeration, the fear is still undeniably present. Every high school and university student has a story to tell about a teacher, tutor or lecturer condemning all who reference Wikipedia to instant failure. I feel it appropriate to mention that, at the time of writing this, a group working on an assignment two computers away from me were having quite a heated discussion regarding the inclusion of a definition found on Wikipedia. One girl was mortified at the idea of using it at all, almost to the point of paranoia about simply having a Wikipedia page open on a university computer. The other argued that Wikipedia is fine to use for simple definitions, but “maybe not so good for researching facts.” Both girls’ points are relevant to debate regarding the value of professionally (pro) created information, versus that created by ‘amateurs’ (am). Introducing: The Pro/Am divide.

Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger discusses the problems, as seen by the academic world, with spaces like Wikipedia. Bruns has quoted him saying that “somebody whose expertise rest on having done extensive original research on a topic gets no particular respect.” Here, he is discussing the phenomenon of anonymity, which is relatively new to the world of research. Wikipedia, as I have stated before, is a place where anybody can contribute to the sphere of knowledge. It is regulated by a community of users, rather than a traditional academic peer-review process. So the responsibility rests with the general consensus of a user-base, rather than with people who may have spent years researching a topic. If such ‘experts have not established themselves as a prominent member of such an online community, their opinion on a topic within such may be considered as invalid.

This editing process gives users a sense of collective purpose, of camaraderie. It encourages interest in topics, and wider research; the more relevant information one has to contribute to such a forum, the higher the status that can be reached within the online community. And yet academics continue to argue that the information presented is not necessarily correct, and therefore it is possibly even unethical to have it there; false information can be deceitful. While all this is true, research suggests that consumers are using such forums as a starting point for research, if they are indeed deeply interested in a topic. A study of Wikipedia traffic suggests that, while the rise during times when exams and assignments are due indicates that it is being used for research purposes, many users go on to do further ‘academically viable’ research.

Sanger discusses that a successful online encyclopedia, which Wikipedia claims to be, could not be successful without management by experts, and a rigorous audit process. He argues, I believe correctly, that this process of creation is what has made Wikipedia so successful, and evidence shows that such sites either are very well researched, or provide the tools for a user to uncover that knowledge themselves. These things concerned, it seems the Pro/Am Divide doesn’t necessarily exist- the two are simply working together differently to the ways in which they did in the past. Academia is definitely not under attack.

One morning I got a phone call from him. Warning me that she was going to call me soon, to get me to confirm that “bears are asexual,” because, understandably, she didn’t quite believe that it was the truth. Two minutes later, I got the call. I explained earnestly that it was one of those strange facts, similar to platypuses being one of the few mammals that lay eggs. I could tell that she was not entirely convinced, and suggested that she search Wikipedia to confirm. All the while, I was editing the entry on bears to suit our purpose.

The Wikipedia entry about bears is partially security protected, or ‘semi-protected.’ What this means is that anonymous users are not able to make edits; only users with autoconfirmed accounts can make edits. The safeguard here is to ensure that only users who have proven themselves trusted editors can make changes to ‘important’ pages. These ideas reflect prominent ones in academic argument on the validity of Wikipedia as an information source.

Wikipedia is a socially constructed information source.  It is created by members of the general public, and the idea of collective intelligence is prominent. “None of us know everything, all of us know something.” Together, the pool of knowledge that a collective number of people can create is theoretically far larger than that which any one person could do individually.

The problem, as debated worldwide by academics in the field, stands with the fact that Wikipedia is open source; it has been compared more closely to open source software than peer production or a learning community. Academic Timme Bisgaard Munk discusses that different motivations drive the desire to contribute to such a forum, including ‘achieving status, being part of a community, pursuit of political agendas, and developing and displaying an online identity.’

These motivations perfectly outline both the good and bad points about Wikipedia:

1) Achieving status/being part of a community- Academic Hichang Cho discusses that motivations for working within Wikipedia include intrinsic rewards, rather than extrinsic ones, as well as relational an social factors such as reciprocal obligations, community membership and the role of social networks and social capital drive the creation of quality entries.

2) Collective intelligence- Academic Thanomwong Poorisat discusses the lack of gatekeepers, and the pitfalls implied if the community evaluation process, or the knowledge of those conducting it, is flawed. He also discusses flaws in perceived credibility, due to a certain amount of anonymity of users.

So while it is true to say that, through collective intelligence, a greater sphere of knowledge can be created and shared, the issue of credibility is a major one. The concept of agenda of the individual user needs to be taken seriously into account. Too often, information presented on forums such as Wikipedia, is taken at face-value. That’s not to say, however, that I believe it to be a useless tool. But it should be taken more as a starting-point for further research, than a complete guide to anything and everything.

NB: The single sentence I added to the ‘Bear’ entry was removed, very soon after, by myself.

Firstly, it shows just how massive the Internet has become. When people who do not use it regularly, or know very much about the way it works (as it is apparent that David Koch and Ted Stevens do not), are worried about it getting too big, the very extent of the technological phenomenon becomes clear. Which goes to show its reach, and just what a powerful tool it could be.

This is particularly interesting in the case of politics, and the rise of eDemocracy. If democracy is the process of establishing an effective communication between political parties and citizens, eDemocracy is the concept of doing so through Web 2.0 tools. Barack Obama did this particularly effective in the U.S. 2008 presidential election campaign, reaching 42% of young voters through online campaigning. Much of this was ‘grassroots’ media, or amateur citizen journalism. Meaning, it was not made for campaigning purposes, and therefore had a totally different element of power. In relation to politics, media have completely expanded the public sphere, and the same can be said of other topics covered by citizen journalism.

The other interesting issue raised by the Sunrise interview relates to the problems with citizen journalism, or non-professionals reporting ‘fact.’ And that is, that ‘fact’ may not always be the ‘truth.’ Because traditional news platforms have always been run by professionals, they warrant a certain element of trust from the audience. However, when non-professionals are using similar platforms, this trust may be misplaced. The problem here is that there are no gatekeepers, which is one of the fundamental principles of citizen journalism- that there shouldn’t be.

‘Produsage’ is Bruns’ term to describe the phenomenon of user-led creation- the driving force for Web 2.0. Traditional media worked on a ‘top-down’ structure. Those in positions of power, the wealthy and the educated, controlled media content and distribution. Theoretically, this hierarchical structure limited diversity, and made it next to impossible for a common citizen to participate in the construction of the media that they were consuming, or have much choice in what media they consumed at any given time. This changed slightly with the introduction of the Internet, but Web 1.0 limited content to static websites created by those who were educated in practices such as writing HTML.

The introduction of Web 2.0, and the convergence of other media forms, has enabled everyone, within certain limitations, to access a greater range of content, and have a hand in creating it. The only requirements are a computer and Internet connection, the education or understanding to use the available platforms, and the willingness to become a produser. In relation to Web 2.0 and the rise of the active consumer, the past hierarchy, which had the wealthy and powerful dominating the media industry, no longer exists. Everybody, to a certain extent, is equal. My favourite quote to describe this phenomenon has come from Graham Young , who said in a recent Political Communication lecture that “on the Internet, nobody knows that you’re a dog.” Repeatedly. Which brings me to the problems of user-led content creation, as I see them.

First and foremost, and probably one of the most commonly discussed problems regarding socially created media is that anybody can create it. Therefore the quality of the information created can be compromised from manipulation by non-professional users. In regards to the creation of entertainment, however, this is not a significant issue. Entertainment is in the eye of the beholder, and in the case of fiction, an educated truth really isn’t important. What is important, I feel, is accessibility of the platforms that help lead user co-creation. Sites such as 60sox provide a platform for digital content creators to upload and share their work, and access that of other subscribers. However, there are so many sections to the site that utilising all of this information to its full potential would be almost impossible for the average user. And when we think of the guidelines of produsage, that anybody with the technology and inclination can become a content creator, it kind of defeats the purpose if a layman can’t actually use the technology to its full advantage. My concern is that the complexity of such platforms may discourage usage, and reverse the trend, to see people going back to consuming media passively. Nobody knows that you’re a dog, on the Internet. But how many domestic dogs would go out hunting when they know there’s food at home?