Table of Contents
Comments
Commenters1
2
If the culture that the web is creating were to be reduced to a single, simple design principle it would be the principle of With. The web invites us to think and act with people, rather than for them, on their behalf or even doing things to them. The web is an invitation to connect with other people with whom we can share, exchange and create new knowledge and ideas through a process of structured lateral, free association of people and ideas. The principle underlying the web is the idea of endless, lateral connection.
2
If the culture that the web is creating were to be reduced to a single, simple design principle it would be the principle of With. The web invites us to think and act with people, rather than for them, on their behalf or even doing things to them. The web is an invitation to connect with other people with whom we can share, exchange and create new knowledge and ideas through a process of structured lateral, free association of people and ideas. The principle underlying the web is the idea of endless, lateral connection.2
2
The rise of what has become known as Web 2.0 is based on a set of important changes in people’s relationship to information and to one another. Barriers to entry into creating media content are falling. It is becoming easier and easier for people to create small packages of content, often by downloading tools available on the web. The web makes it easier for people to publish and distribute this content through a myriad of channels such as YouTube, Facebook and Slideshare. The flow of information is increasingly two way, with people able to comment back to and on what others have posted. It is also increasingly multilateral: the web allows people to make new lateral links to others, to share and connect. At its most impressive, at scale, these aspects of the web can be brought together in a process of highly collaborative, mass creativity in which large groups of people create, share, combine and collate content to create encyclopaedias, open source software programmes, virtual worlds and games. The ethic of the Web 2.0 world is create, connect, combine and collaborate. The underlying principle of doing things with people rather than to or for them will breed very different organisations, services and experiences in virtually every field. In the media is it already creating a new sector – call it mutual media – in which large groups of people create content together, from NetMums to Wikipedia, World of Warcraft to The Student Room.
2
The rise of what has become known as Web 2.0 is based on a set of important changes in people’s relationship to information and to one another. Barriers to entry into creating media content are falling. It is becoming easier and easier for people to create small packages of content, often by downloading tools available on the web. The web makes it easier for people to publish and distribute this content through a myriad of channels such as YouTube, Facebook and Slideshare. The flow of information is increasingly two way, with people able to comment back to and on what others have posted. It is also increasingly multilateral: the web allows people to make new lateral links to others, to share and connect. At its most impressive, at scale, these aspects of the web can be brought together in a process of highly collaborative, mass creativity in which large groups of people create, share, combine and collate content to create encyclopaedias, open source software programmes, virtual worlds and games. The ethic of the Web 2.0 world is create, connect, combine and collaborate. The underlying principle of doing things with people rather than to or for them will breed very different organisations, services and experiences in virtually every field. In the media is it already creating a new sector – call it mutual media – in which large groups of people create content together, from NetMums to Wikipedia, World of Warcraft to The Student Room.3
2
The appeal of the web, however, stems from the way it connects to and amplifies the idea of with in other areas of life. The working ethos of open source communities, Wikipedia and the web more generally is a culture in which people work with people. In the world of the web the main principle is that you can freely communicate with anyone you need to regardless of title or hierarchy. Even if decisions are made in a hierarchical or structured way, communication is free and lateral: anyone can talk to anyone else. The web is creating a culture of working with people not for them. Work is most satisfying and creative when it’s work with people rather than for them.
2
The appeal of the web, however, stems from the way it connects to and amplifies the idea of with in other areas of life. The working ethos of open source communities, Wikipedia and the web more generally is a culture in which people work with people. In the world of the web the main principle is that you can freely communicate with anyone you need to regardless of title or hierarchy. Even if decisions are made in a hierarchical or structured way, communication is free and lateral: anyone can talk to anyone else. The web is creating a culture of working with people not for them. Work is most satisfying and creative when it’s work with people rather than for them.4
The principle of with is at the heart of the most great social enterprises such as the Grameen Bank, Mothers2Mothers, Hole in the Wall and the Barefoot College. Social enterprises identify problems with people and devise solutions with them, building capabilities that allow people to go on and sustain themselves. They have the same peer-to-peer, do-it-yourself spirit as the new organisations being created on the web.
The principle of with is at the heart of the most great social enterprises such as the Grameen Bank, Mothers2Mothers, Hole in the Wall and the Barefoot College. Social enterprises identify problems with people and devise solutions with them, building capabilities that allow people to go on and sustain themselves. They have the same peer-to-peer, do-it-yourself spirit as the new organisations being created on the web.5
Innovation invariably comes from a version of with: creative collaboration and conversation in which people share and blend their ideas. With should be the guiding principle of politics in liberal communities: politicians working with people to find solutions to shared problems. People want a more gown up, bottom up, conversational politics rather than being spun messages or broadcast to from on high. The spirit of with took Barack Obama to the White House as thousands upon thousands of volunteers organised over the web took to the phones to get out the vote. The logic of with mandates a different way of seeing our relationship with our physical environment: creating an economy that works with the environment, recycling resources and minimising waste, rather than wastefully extracting resources from the environment and depositing pollution into it. Thinking with reflects the vital importance of relationships to our well-being. The difference between a life that feels rich and full, and one that feels empty and hollow, are the quality of our relationships, whether we feel significantly connected to others. With is also a design philosophy for learning. People learn most effectively with other people, not just from them. Learning tends to be more effective when it is more collaborative and interactive, when the learner is an active participant in making sense of what they are learning, developing their knowledge by trying it out. Someone who learns with other people, rather than passively from them, is more likely to be able to learn by themselves.
Innovation invariably comes from a version of with: creative collaboration and conversation in which people share and blend their ideas. With should be the guiding principle of politics in liberal communities: politicians working with people to find solutions to shared problems. People want a more gown up, bottom up, conversational politics rather than being spun messages or broadcast to from on high. The spirit of with took Barack Obama to the White House as thousands upon thousands of volunteers organised over the web took to the phones to get out the vote. The logic of with mandates a different way of seeing our relationship with our physical environment: creating an economy that works with the environment, recycling resources and minimising waste, rather than wastefully extracting resources from the environment and depositing pollution into it. Thinking with reflects the vital importance of relationships to our well-being. The difference between a life that feels rich and full, and one that feels empty and hollow, are the quality of our relationships, whether we feel significantly connected to others. With is also a design philosophy for learning. People learn most effectively with other people, not just from them. Learning tends to be more effective when it is more collaborative and interactive, when the learner is an active participant in making sense of what they are learning, developing their knowledge by trying it out. Someone who learns with other people, rather than passively from them, is more likely to be able to learn by themselves.6
The underlying principles of the logic of With are quite different from those of the world of To and For. Knowledge and learning can be co-created, come from many sources, often from committed Pro-Ams as well as experts. Organisations will increasingly resemble networks, partnerships and collaborations not rigid, hierarchies. Authority, even at work, will need to be earned peer-to-peer. There are many more points of where people can take initiative without waiting for permission from on high. A with approach to any issue or challenge has to be co-produced and negotiated. That means it cannot be planned out in detail in advance. With style campaigns and organisations have to emerge and develop.
The underlying principles of the logic of With are quite different from those of the world of To and For. Knowledge and learning can be co-created, come from many sources, often from committed Pro-Ams as well as experts. Organisations will increasingly resemble networks, partnerships and collaborations not rigid, hierarchies. Authority, even at work, will need to be earned peer-to-peer. There are many more points of where people can take initiative without waiting for permission from on high. A with approach to any issue or challenge has to be co-produced and negotiated. That means it cannot be planned out in detail in advance. With style campaigns and organisations have to emerge and develop.7
The web is creating a culture more inclined to thinking, working, acting with providing an alternative to the dominant principle of To and For. The principle of with can apply to art and culture as much as work, politics and learning. It would draw on a very different tradition of the avant-garde, one that has privileged participation and collaboration as the principles at the heart of modern art rather than shock and separation.
The web is creating a culture more inclined to thinking, working, acting with providing an alternative to the dominant principle of To and For. The principle of with can apply to art and culture as much as work, politics and learning. It would draw on a very different tradition of the avant-garde, one that has privileged participation and collaboration as the principles at the heart of modern art rather than shock and separation.Tags: Barack Obama, Barefoot College, media content, mutual media, open source software programmes, peer-to-peer, White House, YouTube
The web and the ‘with’ can take away what mattered in the to and for world such as:
Location, age, gender, race, disability/ability, class, pedigree, education qualification
And can give us what will matter:
Merit, reputation, credibility, creativity, quality
Importantly what we do rather than who we are
The bottom up rather than top down of much of the web means we move from formalising the informal to in-formalising the formal
The rise of a culturally conversant global intelligentsia online provides that community of like-minds. In 2006, the US produced 1.3 million college graduates, 100,000 of whom were arts majors. India produced 3.1 million graduates of which 100% speak English; and China – expected to be the number one English speaking country by 2016 – produced 3.3 million graduates. Most of their degree subjects did not exist 10 years ago (Digital Media, Internet Design, etc.).
We have also seen the emergence of mass innovation and creativity especially amongst this age group – the ever expanding blogosphere, and YouTube video library are evidence of it. As a result, the public have changed expectations around what their interaction with us – the creative and cultural sector – might be. In previous his previous work, WeThink, Charles Leadbeater argues thus:
“We-Think: the power of mass creativity is about what the rise of the likes of Wikipedia and Youtube, Linux and Craigslist means for the way we organise ourselves, not just in digital businesses but in schools and hospitals, cities and mainstream corporations. My argument is that these new forms of mass, creative collaboration announce the arrival of a society in which participation will be the key organising idea rather than consumption and work. People want to be players not just spectators, part of the action, not on the sidelines. ”
Twitter is an example of people being organised, without the organisation. Twitter is a mobile phone-centric micro-blogging platform and social network. With 140 characters, users ask questions, share links, and update their status. It is up-to-the minute, and about the “right now”. The online community drives people to communicate and gather locally. For example, Twestival is a live event that happened globally to raise money for charity on February 12th 2009. Local Twitter networks self organised to host a live fundraising event, where donors’ contributions are collected online as well as at the live event’s auction . 175 Twestivals happened globally, each one organised by members of the community. The Edinburgh network met face-to-face, had fun and made personal and business connections. Arts organisations, museums and galleries are beginning to use Twitter to gather last minute audiences and opinion: Brooklyn Museum “crowd-curated” an exhibition by asking their 20,000 strong Twitter community to vote on works to be included. They frequently “tweet” the latest content released, driving traffic to both their website and the museum . So Web 2.0 isn’t just providing online with experiences. Groups are forming locally, creating events and then continuing as a network, online and offline.
It’s still intriguing to see how inequality gets tackled. It is true – I wholeheartedly believe in this – that we possess all of the qualities and capabilities out there. We can all hate, love, learn, etc. – BUT differently and to a different degree. This is not to say that some sort of equality cannot be reached, but it often comes as lowering the level, whereas most would agree that true learning comes, when aiming high. Regarding learning, I was in three different learning institutions: a school and a university in one country, and a university in another country. Yes, most of my teachers were trying to establish some sort of equilibrium between their knowledge, the demands of the curriculum, and our individual erudition and abilities to learn and communicate. At least I never felt like being done at. But my one year at the University of Manchester was occasionally surreal: a few younger students would feel they were losing time, while the teacher had to accommodate two students, one mature, another foreign, who shared the lack of knowledge of the period they were studying. The latter two would also feel lost because we knew considerably more. We all were “enthusiastic” about our subjects – but in extremely different ways. To me, this remains the epitome of enforsed equality and that cheering for “enthusiasm for learning” that serves little good (apart from a degree, of course).
So far the best examples of learning are delivered by Family Friendly events, Family Friendly Film Festival, e.g. Many workshops are free, and children do get to a hands-on experience. But they are not happening online.
Also – what about that book about being lonely online? Add that proverbial Facebook friend, too, if you like. Neither loneliness, nor the “with” principle should be taken at face value and enforsed. With may be essential to discuss and help generate ideas, but especially when the ideas reach the dissemination stage. Loneliness is essential to reflect on an individual’s progress. Loneliness enables you to take responsibility for your own actions, and this is pivotal in one’s development as a person. Cue in Kant, that the true enlightenment happens when people learn to use their own mind. No doubt, it is great to belong to a community of like-minded people, we as humans all share the necessity to be with others, to engage with others. But at the same time, unless we learn to speak and follow our own mind, not the collective or common mind, we cannot expect not to be done to and for.
Spot on Chris! well said. Grass roots people on a level playing field with the whole world, where gender and position don’t matter, a cyberworld of equals. (if they can get a connection that is).
‘The ethic of the Web 2.0 world is create, connect, combine and collaborate.’ And that is what is happening, all over the country, and all over the world. Mega isn’t it?
Agree with previous comment, Web2 is building cohesion, both local and global, it has to be a Good Thing.
Unintended synchronicity! We launched http://www.cuttingroomexperiment.com in Manchester yesterday – the audience create the event they want on 20th June. It’s based around ‘flash-mobs’ – we provide the space and some facilities and the rest is pretty much up to the on-line community to create the day they want. It’s an ‘experiment’ for sure, hope it goes to the heart of the freedom that web 2.0 provides – we shall see what happens on the ‘create, connect, combine and collaborate’ front. Wish us luck!