[p2p-research] Self-organizing principles

Wed Jun 10 16:14:57 CEST 2009

Tx Michel. I can elaborate some more on my motivations and give some
background.

"*What about communication?*

This above question I asked myself after reading two very inspiring pieces
of work. The first is the PhD. of Mark Elliott, 'Stigmergic Collaboration. A
Theoretical Framework for Mass Collaboration'. The second is a paper from
Paul B. Hartzog, 'The Autocatalysis of Social Systems and the Emergence of
Trust'.

Paul argues that every act of communication is also an act of coordination.
In order to communicate, both agents involved have to agree on the way
communication works, which language is being used. But how do you agree
without communication? Communication seems to be interrelated to
coordination.

Mark argues that stigmergy is a form of self-organizing, without the need
for any communication. This should resolve the coordination paradox. Because
agents leave traces in the system, other agents can act on them. This
indirect form of communication is not directly addressed to anyone, but the
one that notices the trace can act upon it. But how does coordination work
here?

The interesting part is that it seems there are some different approaches.
Paul is talking about direct communication, while Mark talks about indirect
communication. But coordination is always needed. And communication is
always happening. Can stigmergy be the autocatalyst for communication? But
how is communication being agreed upon? Please let us know your opinion.

So why am I discussing this? Currently I am starting to research
self-organization as the new dominant form of organization, and how online
collaborative spaces can play a role there. Very much related to digital
stigmergy, communication and coordination. The goal of this research is to
help organizations, or, better, employees of organizations, how to
participate in self-organized groups or online collaborative spaces.
Participating starts by giving tools to employees to empower them, and to
identify socially interesting online spaces where they can collaborate and
co-create.

*Self-organization and online collaborative spaces*

Social structures are changing. Now we are more connected than we ever were,
and this connectivity between humans will grow further and further. At the
same time, people are spending more time participating more online. The
Internet enables us to participate more globally, which changes the way we
communicate and cooperate.

By using the Internet, people leave traces by posting comments, having their
visits being logged, writing articles, updating Twitter and Facebook
statuses, etc. By doing this, the Internet as complex environment or system
changes. These changes caused by humans influences behaviour of other
humans. For example, articles on Wikipedia are created and getting better
because people create articles and make changes to them. Even all changes
are recorded and can be seen by anyone. Most of the time, these actions are
uncoordinated, but stimulates a subsequent action. Direct communication is
often not necessary. This phenomenon is also known as stigmergy, which is a
mechanism of spontaneous, indirect coordination between agents or actions,
where the trace left in the environment by an action stimulates the
performance of a subsequent action, by the same or a different agent.

Stigmergy is a form of self-organization. Because people are more and more
connected, and make use of a shared environment, self-organization is
happening more and more. People connect through social networks, and
organize themselves without any formal contract. Contracts are at most
social contracts, for example when people are striving the same goal.
Actions and participations are not obligatory, but voluntary. This is very
different from the most contracts that exist in most current organizations.
People are free to contribute and produce, while their actions are judged by
their peers a posteriori.

People working together to produce goods and services through
self-organization resembles a new, third, mode of production, which is
called (commons-based) peer-production (Benkler, 2002). The central mode of
coordination is neither command (as it is inside the firm) nor price (as it
is in the market) but self-assigned volunteer contributions to a common pool
of resources. On the Internet, producing and coordination costs are very
low. Producing, or reproducing, digital goods have almost no transaction
costs, and because of stigmergy, coordination costs are very low as well.

Motivations for people to use the Internet to consume and produce are both
market-based and social. Most people have to make a living, but are spending
time online as well for maintaining social relationships. Combinations of
the two are seen as well, and in both directions. People peer-produce while
not being paid, but hoping to be noticed by companies that will hire them
(or get credit). On the other hand, companies pay people by contributing to
open-source projects, because they use these products. Individual people are
peer-producing for both reasons at the same time, and for different
projects. Their social interests can differ from their professional. These
characteristics can be seen as an eco-system where people peer-produce for
both motivations, and theoretically can switch very easy from one system to
another, and from one project to another.

The enabler for these self-organizing of people is the Internet. More and
more tools are being created to be used online that amplify the
possibilities to self-organize and peer-produce. Tools are getting more and
more mature and make it more and more easy and inviting for people to
participate. These self-organized groups are very knowledgeable, which makes
these groups very powerful. Power is shifting from classic hiërarchical
top-down organizations to decentralized bottom-up organized networks.

Organizations need to adapt to the change of social structures and
distribution of power. By starting to recognize that new organizational
forms exist and have the right to exist, classic organizations can adapt to,
co-exist with and co-operate with the decentralized self-organized groups.
Trying to fight or ignore their existance and the value they have and
produce will exclude companies from these groups, which is no good for them.
Opening up by participating and collaboration is a better strategy. Many
companies already do this, but it would be better to adapt to fit these
existing groups more. Companies who empower their employees to speak about
their company and to collaborate with self-organized groups outside their
company are seen as more authentic and are accepted easier in those groups."

2009/6/10 Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>

> could be a little longer, the end is abrupt I think ...
>
> perhaps you could add what your motivation is, what you are trying to find
> out?
>
> 2009/6/10 Bas Reus <bas.reus at gmail.com>
>
> Hi all. I agree on starting a blogpost. I am thinking of the following
>> post, please review. Thanks in advance.
>>
>> "*What about communication?*
>>
>> This above question I asked myself after reading two very inspiring pieces
>> of work. The first is the PhD. of Mark Elliott, 'Stigmergic Collaboration. A
>> Theoretical Framework for Mass Collaboration'. The second is a paper from
>> Paul B. Hartzog, 'The Autocatalysis of Social Systems and the Emergence of
>> Trust'.
>>
>> Paul argues that every act of communication is also an act of
>> coordination. In order to communicate, both agents involved have to agree on
>> the way communication works, which language is being used. But how do you
>> agree without communication? Communication seems to be interrelated to
>> coordination.
>>
>> Mark argues that stigmergy is a form of self-organizing, without the need
>> for any communication. This should resolve the coordination paradox. Because
>> agents leave traces in the system, other agents can act on them. This
>> indirect form of communication is not directly addressed to anyone, but the
>> one that notices the trace can act upon it. But how does coordination work
>> here?
>>
>> The interesting part is that it seems there are some different approaches.
>> Paul is talking about direct communication, while Mark talks about indirect
>> communication. But coordination is always needed. And communication is
>> always happening. Can stigmergy be the autocatalyst for communication? But
>> how is communication being agreed upon? Please let us know your opinion.
>>
>> So why am I discussing this? Currently I am starting to research
>> self-organization as the new dominant form of organization, and how online
>> collaborative spaces can play a role there. Very much related to digital
>> stigmergy, communication and coordination."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2009/5/29 Mark Elliott <me at mark-elliott.net>
>>
>> By all means (from my perspective) it's a great area for discussion -
>>> might get a few comments even...
>>>
>>> 2009/5/28 Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
>>>
>>> Hi Mark and Bas,
>>>>
>>>> perhaps we can republish your distinction on our blog and wiki?
>>>>
>>>> Michel
>>>>
>>>> 2009/5/28 Mark Elliott <me at mark-elliott.net>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the feedback Bas. And that's exactly right Michel, stigmergy
>>>>> is in fact a form of communication, just an indirect one mediated by the
>>>>> environment.
>>>>>
>>>>> I haven't yet had a chance to read Paul's attachment, but I too would
>>>>> argue that every act of communication also entails coordination. Actually,
>>>>> as part of my phd, i developed a framework for collective activity that
>>>>> specifically distinguishes coordination, cooperation and collaboration (pg
>>>>> 39).
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Mark
>>>>>
>>>>> 2009/5/25 Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Bas,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the answer is that stigmergy is indirect, impersonal
>>>>>> communication, you leave 'holoptic trails' that can be read by whoever will
>>>>>> need them ... So there is communication if you like, but only indirect ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Michel
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2009/5/25 Bas Reus <bas.reus at gmail.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Mark, Paul, et al.,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you very much for your responses so far.
>>>>>>> @Mark: I read your abstract and some other pieces of your PhD. Very
>>>>>>> inspiring.
>>>>>>> @Paul: I read the PDF you attached, very inspiring as well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> These pieces of work will definately move me to the right directions.
>>>>>>> Reading the material, I note some differences that cannot be both true, at
>>>>>>> least in some way. In the PDF Paul sent, you argue that every act of
>>>>>>> communication is also an act of coordination, while Mark argues that
>>>>>>> stigmergy is a form of self-organizing, without the need for any
>>>>>>> communication.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What are your thoughts about this? Of course, this conclusion can be
>>>>>>> rather rough and lacks some theoretical fundaments, but this is a differnce
>>>>>>> I noticed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Very happy to discuss further as well, as this moves me to the rights
>>>>>>> directions. Digital stigmergy in the form of mass collaboration, with some
>>>>>>> rules of engagement set a priori to spark a autopoietic solution might just
>>>>>>> be the way to go for me. But I'm very open for more suggestions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>>> Bas
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2009/5/22 Mark Elliott <me at mark-elliott.net>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Bas,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regarding,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wikipedia can be seen as a self-organizing system where online
>>>>>>>>> collaboration is taking place. This is a great example that we all know. But
>>>>>>>>> what can be learnt from that? How did it become what it is today? Is it
>>>>>>>>> because of self-organizing, or where there some rules agreed upon that made
>>>>>>>>> it happen?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is more or less exactly the focus of my phd<http://mark-elliott.net/blog/?page_id=24>- digital stigmergy as a core underlying mechanism in the coordination and
>>>>>>>> stimulation of online collaboration. Here's the abstract:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This thesis presents an application-oriented theoretical framework
>>>>>>>>> for generalised and specific collaborative contexts with a special focus on
>>>>>>>>> Internet-based mass collaboration. The proposed framework is informed by the
>>>>>>>>> author’s many years of collaborative arts practice and the design, building
>>>>>>>>> and moderation of a number of online collaborative environments across a
>>>>>>>>> wide range of contexts and applications. The thesis provides
>>>>>>>>> transdisciplinary architecture for describing the underlying mechanisms that
>>>>>>>>> have enabled the emergence of mass collaboration and other activities
>>>>>>>>> associated with ‘Web 2.0′ by incorporating a collaboratively developed
>>>>>>>>> definition and general framework for collaboration and collective activity,
>>>>>>>>> as well as theories of swarm intelligence, stigmergy, and distributed
>>>>>>>>> cognition.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Accompanying this creative arts thesis is a DVD-Rom which includes
>>>>>>>>> offline versions of the three Internet based collaborative environments
>>>>>>>>> designed, built and implemented in accordance with the frameworks for
>>>>>>>>> digital stigmergy and mass collaboration developed in the written work. The
>>>>>>>>> creative works in conjunction with the written thesis help to explore and
>>>>>>>>> more rigorously define the collaborative process in general, while testing
>>>>>>>>> the theory that stigmergy is an inherent component of collaborative
>>>>>>>>> processes which incorporate collective material production.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Supported by a range of contemporary examples of Internet activity,
>>>>>>>>> including the accompanying creative works, it is found that stigmergy is a
>>>>>>>>> deeply rooted mechanism inherent in not only traditional material
>>>>>>>>> collaborative processes, but a range of emerging online practices which may
>>>>>>>>> be broadly categorised as digital stigmergic cooperation and collaboration.
>>>>>>>>> This latter class enables the extreme scaling seen in mass collaborative
>>>>>>>>> projects such as Wikipedia.org, open source software projects and the
>>>>>>>>> massive, multiplayer environment, Second Life. This scaling is achieved
>>>>>>>>> through a range of attributes which are examined, such as the provision of a
>>>>>>>>> localised site of individualistic engagement which reduces demands placed
>>>>>>>>> upon participants by the social negotiation of contributions while
>>>>>>>>> increasing capacity for direct and immediate creative participation via
>>>>>>>>> digital workspaces. Also examined are a range of cultural, economic and
>>>>>>>>> sociopolitical impacts which emerge as a direct result of mass
>>>>>>>>> collaboration’s highly distributed, non-market based, peer-production
>>>>>>>>> processes, all of which are shown to have important implications for the
>>>>>>>>> further transformation of our contemporary information and media landscape.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Happy to discuss further :).
>>>>>>>> Mark
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Michel Bauwens <
>>>>>>>> michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Bas,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm copying Gus, and  his initiative on Studies in Emergent Order,
>>>>>>>>> who may point you to some extra resources
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mark Elliot studies stygmergy, i.e. communicative swarming,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm sure paul's panarchy is also related,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Michel
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 11:17 PM, Ryan Lanham <
>>>>>>>>> rlanham1963 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopoiesis  is a starting point.
>>>>>>>>>> There are huge literatures in self-organizing systems in computer science
>>>>>>>>>> and AI.  There are discussions of self-organization in physics and in
>>>>>>>>>> communications theory.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think one of the most accessible and best recent studies is
>>>>>>>>>> called Wikinomics.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You might want to look into the literature on social network
>>>>>>>>>> analysis and join the mailing lists at INSNA which have covered these topics
>>>>>>>>>> from sociological and mathematical perspectives for several years.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In biology, you my find your topic goes toward swarm science.
>>>>>>>>>> Swarms are also heavily discussed in crowdsourcing literatures.  All of
>>>>>>>>>> these approaches overlap collaboration and self-organization.  There are
>>>>>>>>>> even literatures in constitutional and legal theory.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ryan Lanham
>>>>>>>>>> rlanham1963 at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>> Facebook: Ryan_Lanham
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Bas Reus <bas.reus at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> All, this is a repost of a topic started at
>>>>>>>>>>> http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/. Please advice.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> P2P friends, here a topic on self-organizing. Currently I am
>>>>>>>>>>> trying to define this theme by making a list of themes that overlap
>>>>>>>>>>> self-organizing somewhere, and help to define the theme seen from an online
>>>>>>>>>>> collaborative point of view.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Self-organizing to me can be a system that is highly adaptive,
>>>>>>>>>>> flexible and 'bottom-up'. When seen from an online collaborative point of
>>>>>>>>>>> view I tend to think of empowerment and rules of engagement.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Of course Wikipedia can be seen as a self-organizing system where
>>>>>>>>>>> online collaboration is taking place. This is a great example that we all
>>>>>>>>>>> know. But what can be learnt from that? How did it become what it is today?
>>>>>>>>>>> Is it because of self-organizing, or where there some rules agreed upon that
>>>>>>>>>>> made it happen?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to be inspired by your thougths on this subject.
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, Bas.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Original topic:
>>>>>>>>>>> http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/forum/topics/selforganizing-principles
>>>>>>>>>>> I already got some inspiration from Michel, on some available
>>>>>>>>>>> research and interests.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> p2presearch mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> p2presearch mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University-
>>>>>>>>> http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
>>>>>>>>> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
>>>>>>>>> http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
>>>>>>>>> http://p2pfoundation.ning.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
>>>>>>>>> http://www.shiftn.com/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> -----
>>>>>>>> Mark Elliott, PhD
>>>>>>>> Director, CollabForge pty ltd
>>>>>>>> collaboration ~ mass collaboration ~ social software
>>>>>>>> http://Collabforge.com ~ http://Mark-Elliott.net ~
>>>>>>>> http://MetaCollab.net
>>>>>>>> Phone: 0421 978 501 (international callers: +614 21 978 501)
>>>>>>>> Twitter: MarkElliott
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
>>>>>> http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
>>>>>> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
>>>>>> http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
>>>>>> http://p2pfoundation.ning.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
>>>>>> http://www.shiftn.com/
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> -----
>>>>> Mark Elliott, PhD
>>>>> Director, CollabForge pty ltd
>>>>> collaboration ~ mass collaboration ~ social software
>>>>> http://Collabforge.com ~ http://Mark-Elliott.net ~
>>>>> http://MetaCollab.net
>>>>> Phone: 0421 978 501 (international callers: +614 21 978 501)
>>>>> Twitter: MarkElliott
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
>>>> http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
>>>> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>>>>
>>>> Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
>>>> http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
>>>> http://p2pfoundation.ning.com
>>>>
>>>> Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens
>>>>
>>>> The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
>>>> http://www.shiftn.com/
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> -----
>>> Mark Elliott, PhD
>>> Director, CollabForge pty ltd
>>> collaboration ~ mass collaboration ~ social software
>>> http://Collabforge.com ~ http://Mark-Elliott.net ~ http://MetaCollab.net
>>> Phone: 0421 978 501 (international callers: +614 21 978 501)
>>> Twitter: MarkElliott
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
> http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>
> Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
> http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
> http://p2pfoundation.ning.com
>
> Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens
>
> The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
> http://www.shiftn.com/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090610/69b95795/attachment-0001.html>