Welcome to Distributed Creativity--Week 3

On Wednesday, November 26, 2003, at 03:03PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
>When communities open themselves up to sharing their resources with the world at large, they also open themselves up to exploitation by special interests.

This is why GPL-style "share-and-share-alike" licensing is so vitally important. You reap what you sow. If you exploit you must contribute, so you yourself may be exploited, even by the very people you seek to exploit.

Corporate raiders fear the GPL because it ties value extraction to value creation.

>How can communal protocols and trust metrics address the incursions of such interlopers in a way that is consistent with a community's egalitarian ethics?

They cannot. Any given ethical system can be ironised to make defence offence (I won't mention Godel). Protection of egalitarian ethics may need to be extra-egalitarian. Ouch.

The person who believes their view is superior is a problem for the person that believes all views are equal. Self-oppression, so common a prescription in the Left, is no moral high ground. It assumes an unassailability it does not afford.

>Does the creative subversion of an open community help us imagine stronger models for such communities, or merely undermine them?

If a community feels it is being subverted it can fork. :-) This is a frontier, not an apartment block.

Wired had an article on open source design the other month. For art I worry that the results will be "consequences" rather than plussing. We don't have the tools (unless collaborative, downloadable, Creative Commons-licensed SVG blogs take off or Common Content start providing CVS logins). Successful Open Source Art projects, like successful OS Software projects, need strong leadership, strong identity, strong shared interest, strong social and technical rewards, and strong acceptance criteria. I've been writing about this on my weblog recently…

- Rob.

Dear Rhizomers,
It is considered bad form to subscribe people to lists without their
knowledge and/or agreement.
We are all suffering from a flood of spam which threatens to overwhelm us.
Yet, I suddenly find that I am subscribed by proxy to a list called
[email protected]
Did I ask to subscribe to this list? No. Can I unsubscribe? Only by
unsubscribing to Rhizome.
And why is this a problem?
Well, my mail box now fills up with piles of emails discussing some tosh
with no beginning and no end and most of them NOT EVEN SIGNED.
You ask the question:
> Does the creative subversion of an open community help us imagine stronger
models for such communities, or merely undermine them?
Well, I don't know about creative subversion here. It seems to me that what
the switchstance project has done is hitched a free ride on a long
established community.
Yours v. pissed off.
Ivan


—– Original Message —–
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 3:03 PM
Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Welcome to Distributed Creativity–Week 3


> Welcome to week three of Distributed Creativity, a critical online forum
co-organized by Still Water at UMaine and Eyebeam.
>
>
> <b>Digital Karma: Innovations in Ethics</b>
> co-hosted by Rhizome
>

> I'd like to welcome our moderators for this week-Rachel Greene, Patrick
Lichty, Perry Garvin, as well as participants Carol Stakenas, Yael Kanarek,
Carlo Zanni, Jeremy Turner, Jessica Hammer, Lizbeth Goodman, Etienne
Cliquet. They will have questions of their own to pose, but let me prime the
pump with the following:

> Does the creative subversion of an open community help us imagine stronger
models for such communities, or merely undermine them?
>

Re: 'Trust metrics

Ivan – You haven't been subscribed to any new list. The DC forum is joining Rhizome RAW for a week… they have subscribed to RAW. – Rachel


Ivan Pope wrote:

> Dear Rhizomers,
> It is considered bad form to subscribe people to lists without their
> knowledge and/or agreement.
> We are all suffering from a flood of spam which threatens to overwhelm
> us.
> Yet, I suddenly find that I am subscribed by proxy to a list called
> [email protected]
> Did I ask to subscribe to this list? No. Can I unsubscribe? Only by
> unsubscribing to Rhizome.
> And why is this a problem?
> Well, my mail box now fills up with piles of emails discussing some
> tosh
> with no beginning and no end and most of them NOT EVEN SIGNED.
> You ask the question:
> > Does the creative subversion of an open community help us imagine
> stronger
> models for such communities, or merely undermine them?
> Well, I don't know about creative subversion here. It seems to me that
> what
> the switchstance project has done is hitched a free ride on a long
> established community.
> Yours v. pissed off.
> Ivan
>
>
> —– Original Message —–
> From: <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 3:03 PM
> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Welcome to Distributed Creativity–Week 3
>
>
> > Welcome to week three of Distributed Creativity, a critical online
> forum
> co-organized by Still Water at UMaine and Eyebeam.
> >
> >
> > <b>Digital Karma: Innovations in Ethics</b>
> > co-hosted by Rhizome
> >
>
> > I'd like to welcome our moderators for this week-Rachel Greene,
> Patrick
> Lichty, Perry Garvin, as well as participants Carol Stakenas, Yael
> Kanarek,
> Carlo Zanni, Jeremy Turner, Jessica Hammer, Lizbeth Goodman, Etienne
> Cliquet. They will have questions of their own to pose, but let me
> prime the
> pump with the following:
>
> > Does the creative subversion of an open community help us imagine
> stronger
> models for such communities, or merely undermine them?
> >
>
>