Talk:Core Peer-2-Peer Collaboration Principles: Difference between revisions
Poor Richard (talk | contribs) (PR) |
Poor Richard (talk | contribs) (PR) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
--[[User:Poor Richard|Poor Richard]] 17:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC) | --[[User:Poor Richard|Poor Richard]] 17:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC) | ||
This is expansive and open-ended (good):"P2P should evolve to meet whatever needs peers have in building a commons or similar works. Perhaps the term or whole concept of P2P will be subsumed by other ideas..." | This is expansive and open-ended (good):''"P2P should evolve to meet whatever needs peers have in building a commons or similar works. Perhaps the term or whole concept of P2P will be subsumed by other ideas..."'' | ||
This seems arbitrarily constrained: "...without direct expectation of reciprocity from any particular individual. It is therefore not a hierarchical allocation method, not an exchange based market form, and not a reciprocity based gift economy." | This seems arbitrarily constrained: ''"...without direct expectation of reciprocity from any particular individual. It is therefore not a hierarchical allocation method, not an exchange based market form, and not a reciprocity based gift economy."'' | ||
Why rule all those things out of peer collaborations? | Why rule all those things out of peer collaborations? | ||
"Peers typically recognize and interact with each other without reference to rank or hierarchies." | ''"Peers typically recognize and interact with each other without reference to rank or hierarchies."'' | ||
Are you sure? That's not my take on the internet set. Everybody's keeping scores and making moves, even in the Linux and Wikipedia communities. | Are you sure? That's not my take on the internet set. Everybody's keeping scores and making moves, even in the Linux and Wikipedia communities. | ||
''"3. Samuel Rose offers the following on anonymity:... | |||
"The problem it was trying to solve was (and is) that the wiki can be edited by anyone, without logging in. The wiki system cannot really afford very many unidentified people. The lower the participatory barrier, the more valuable it is to be able to identify the people within it. This identity is one of the only ways to really sustain the "commons" of the system over time."'' | |||
Anti-pseudonym prejudice is prejudice. | |||
''"See also...JOHO the Blog relevant post "'' | |||
The last source contradicts the anti-anonymity bias. | |||
--[[User:Poor Richard|Poor Richard]] 19:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC) | --[[User:Poor Richard|Poor Richard]] 19:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 19:26, 28 June 2012
--Poor Richard 17:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC) This is expansive and open-ended (good):"P2P should evolve to meet whatever needs peers have in building a commons or similar works. Perhaps the term or whole concept of P2P will be subsumed by other ideas..."
This seems arbitrarily constrained: "...without direct expectation of reciprocity from any particular individual. It is therefore not a hierarchical allocation method, not an exchange based market form, and not a reciprocity based gift economy."
Why rule all those things out of peer collaborations?
"Peers typically recognize and interact with each other without reference to rank or hierarchies."
Are you sure? That's not my take on the internet set. Everybody's keeping scores and making moves, even in the Linux and Wikipedia communities.
"3. Samuel Rose offers the following on anonymity:...
"The problem it was trying to solve was (and is) that the wiki can be edited by anyone, without logging in. The wiki system cannot really afford very many unidentified people. The lower the participatory barrier, the more valuable it is to be able to identify the people within it. This identity is one of the only ways to really sustain the "commons" of the system over time."
Anti-pseudonym prejudice is prejudice.
"See also...JOHO the Blog relevant post "
The last source contradicts the anti-anonymity bias. --Poor Richard 19:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)