Online business Toolkit

Living and learning in a virtual world

Tags:
Howard Rheingold,
Online,
Community,
Virtual

Daniel Terdiman CNET Hardware

Published: 12 Feb 2007 13:32 GMT

…that it's so easy to roll your own these days. It used to be a big deal to set up your own chat or BBS or listserv. Now it's part of the toolset for millions of people, and it's mostly free. My main concern has always been about the quality of online discourse — are we improving or degrading the public sphere?

What did you think of Time magazine's naming "You" as person of the year? Time usually names a phenomenon when it mainstreams. Although it's typical that they used "You" — as opposed to "Us", the editors — instead of "Us". But it mainstreams commons-based peer production, which is way too stuffy a term for most people. The idea that people only act for profit is pernicious and outmoded. Sometimes, self-interest adds up to more for everyone. And sometimes, if it's easy enough, most people will do things for altruistic purposes. The research on open-source production seems to indicate that a mixture of motives is necessary for creating public goods such as open-source software, Wikipedia, etc. Reputation, profit, learning, fun, altruism. Profit is in there, for sure. It's just not the only motivation.

You are a Burning Man veteran. What kind of parallels do you see between Burning Man and virtual worlds and online communities?
Without email, Burning Man never would have gotten off the ground, and of course there are countless mail lists and wikis used by the various camps to organise their act. And Burning Man is a great example of commons-based peer production and that mixture of motives — except there isn't much profit in spending all year and thousands of dollars planning, hauling, constructing and burning Big Art. I see a real continuity in the Dionysian dimension — rock and roll, acid tests, raves and Burning Man are an evolutionary continuum. I'd say that Dionysians are getting better at it.

Nite Zelmanov [from the audience] asks: Are we improving or degrading the public sphere? Is the signal-to-noise ratio of modern mob communications too low to really enrich us, or is this unprecedented collaboration actually leading to a better informed, better educated and more empowered public?
I really think an educational effort is called for — in the broadest sense. In the olden days, Usenet veterans would teach netiquette to newcomers. Every September, jillions of new college students would come online and people would take time to educate them — not always gently. But then AOL dumped three million people on the net without instruction and it became the September that never ended. I personally think that the importance of online discourse ought to be taught in high school, but public education changes slowly. My latest effort is Participatory Media Literacy. I'm trying to find some funding to set up after-school and summer programmes to teach participatory media as an avenue to civic engagement about issues that young people care about.

Polysilox Apogee [from the audience] asks: Are you familiar with the [Sun co-founder] Bill Joy and [high-tech inventor] Ray Kurzweil debate? And what are your thoughts about where digital becomes a part of the real day-to-day world, like foglets and nano and all that stuff?
I'm concerned about autonomous technology, so I'm sympathetic to Bill Joy's concerns. One always has to take Kurzweil seriously because he has solved some hard problems, but I am reminded of [inventors] Bucky Fuller and Doug Engelbart. Engineers often have a somewhat limited vision about consequences. Let's put it this way. There is a lot of money available to flog the benefits of untested technologies, but the only people besides Bill Joy who worry about the consequences seem to be either obscure academics, or sceptics like [computer specialist] Cliff Stoll who have their own set of blinders. Langdon Winner is a brilliant technology critic, but who here has heard of him? Deep and broad and thoughtful technology criticism isn't that popular.