[Humanist] 24.559 open source vs social software

Humanist Discussion Group willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk
Tue Dec 7 09:37:18 CET 2010


                 Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 24, No. 559.
         Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
                       www.digitalhumanities.org/humanist
                Submit to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org

  [1]   From:    Marc_Wilhelm_Küster <kuester at fh-worms.de>                (25)
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 24.555 open source vs social software

  [2]   From:    jeremy hunsinger <jhuns at vt.edu>                            (5)
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 24.555 open source vs social software


--[1]------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 08:42:13 +0100
        From: Marc_Wilhelm_Küster <kuester at fh-worms.de>
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 24.555 open source vs social software
        In-Reply-To: <20101206064415.5D90FB66C6 at woodward.joyent.us>

> I think you'd do well to read Yochai Benkler's "Coase's Penguin" and "The Wealth of Networks" where you'll find a very compelling definition of
> commons-based peer collaboration that includes open source projects and Web 2.0 projects.  Also, I think that the ability of users to easily
> contribute to web content through the lowering of barriers to entry is a much more suitable definition of Web 2.0 than AJAX.

Open Source is not necessarily linked to concepts such as peer
production and decentralization. While many Open Source projects in
fact thrive on decentralized peer production, just as many, if not
more, other Open Source projects are consciously or de facto driven by
individuals, individual companies or closely knit consortia and are as
centrally organized as any commercial software development. The key
criterion is that, given sufficient interest, somebody else *could*
take the lead and continue to drive the development under another
umbrella if the original driving force falls short in his view.

And, to state the obvious, the universally accepted definition of Open
Source is the one provided by the Open Source initiative
(http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd). For very good reasons this
definition does not state anything about the authoring process of open
source software, only about rules for its reuse.

Best regards,

Marc Küster

--
Prof. Dr. Marc Wilhelm Küster
FH Worms - University of Applied Sciences
Fachbereich Informatik/Telekommunikation
Erenburgerstraße 19 * D-67549 Worms
http://people.fh-worms.de/~kuester



--[2]------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 06:12:07 -0600
        From: jeremy hunsinger <jhuns at vt.edu>
        Subject: Re: [Humanist] 24.555 open source vs social software
        In-Reply-To: <20101206064415.5D90FB66C6 at woodward.joyent.us>

ok... so let's be clear:

social software is  https://www.socialtext.net/ssa/index.cgi?social_software_alliance   around 2001 it became a business strategy. I have the first use of the term in 80's in hci literature, but that isn't really the same thing.

open source is  http://opensource.org/  around 1998 it became a business strategy, and the term arose against freesoftware around then.  

In short, they are profoundly different concepts and shouldn't be confused, or bundled as one.  Similarly, crowdsourcing has a different ontogeny.   social software is historically concurrent with some of open source-d software, and sometimes they are the same, and most times not.

as for a publication strategy... IGI global has its own; it is on my boycott list because it overproduces zombie/junk publications and under-edits them.  See Ian Bogost for a nice writeup here: http://www.bogost.com/blog/writeonly_publication.shtml  




More information about the Humanist mailing list