[p2p-research] P2P Ideology

[Samuel Rose]

I think you may be right Paul.

I think when it comes to world views, that it's best to look at why
people are doing what they are doing.

So, the question in the case of a p2p worldview is "why" are people
collaborating stigmergically? Everyone who collaborates stigmergically
is not operating from a "p2p" worldview (or "p2p ideology"). So, why
would they do something that looks like it is related to p2p activity?
I contend that it is in part because the new mediums (that may be
based around stigmergic collaboration)  are now part of their
environment. So, they learn to assimilate those mediums and ways of
solving problems that seem to them to enhance their worldview, and
contrast or reject those that do not (Sharif, M
http://www.brocku.ca/MeadProject/Sherif/Sherif_1958b.html  )

The emergence of mediums that allow for stigmergic collaboration may
have been accelerated by people who are focused on a p2p worldview way
of solving problems, but they are now used by people who possess a
diverse collection of worldviews (including the "p2p" view)



On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Paul D. Fernhout
<pdfernhout at kurtz-fernhout.com> wrote:
> I feel it's more like low transaction costs (including agreed on licenses
> and cheap bandwith) as well as increasing scale is a precondition for
> "stigmergy" and "stigmergic collaboration":
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigmergy
>  http://collaboration.wikia.com/wiki/Stigmergic_collaboration
>
> From the second link:
> """
>  4. Collaboration in large groups (roughly 25-n) is dependent upon
> stigmergy.
>  Although social mediation is an inherent part of collaboration, when
> applied in traditional face-to-face collaboration social mediation can
> provide a barrier to the rapid and seamless integration of contributions
> that characterises projects such as Wikipedia.org and the Open Source
> software movement. It may be that there is simply so much complex
> information to be negotiated when people communicate directly that the
> negotiations of the many collapse under their own weight without the
> mediation of an administrative/stigmergic system.
>  This is not to say that social negotiation does not take place in
> stigmergic collaborative contexts – it may even be essential to developing
> the collaborative community – but rather that negotiation takes a back seat
> in terms of the creative drafting process. Most (if not all) stigmergic wiki
> collaborations have discussions associated with the content being developed,
> but it is possible to contribute (to Wikipedia.org, for instance) without
> discussing what you are contributing or creating. Conversely, it is also
> possible to take part in discussion without editing an article. Although
> such discussions are most certainly an important and perhaps crucial form of
> contribution, they are typically secondary to the objectives of the overall
> project. For an example of a discussion accompanying mass collaboration, see
> the Israel talk page at Wikipedia.org. In addition to such points of
> discussion, bulletin boards, IRC (chat) and email lists often support and
> augment the negotiation.
> """
>
> --Paul Fernhout
> http://www.pdfernhout.net/
>
>
> Ryan Lanham wrote:
>>
>> Yes it is.  But that simplicity is rooted, I suspect, in low or no
>> transaction costs.  It may be that things like the Creative Commons
>> license
>> are anti-P2P by instituting too much complexity for certain moral reasons.
>> A P2P ethos would give guidance on simplicity gains (low transaction
>> costs)
>> versus moral gains (preventing profit).
>>
>> What are the root building blocks of P2P?  Is it perhaps low or zero
>> transaction costs?   Is it minimal expectations of personal gain?  Both?
>>
>> R.
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Michel Bauwens
>> <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> yes, but tens of thousands of people working on wikipedia or linux
>>> without
>>> a command and control hierarchy, without encountering blocks like the
>>> 'mythical man-month' limit affecting corporate production, isn't that  a
>>> re-simplification of complexity ..?
>>>
>>> Michel
>>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Ryan Lanham
>>> <rlanham1963 at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> If a financial derivative is a complex transaction, or a big corporation
>>>> that lawyers work on for a purchase, that is complexity.   P2P eschews
>>>> that.  Its transactions are simple.  Markets are basic.  Transaction
>>>> costs
>>>> are low (Oliver Williamson).
>>>>
>>>> R.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 7:45 AM, Michel Bauwens
>>>> <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> it seems to me that for a system to be more encompassing, it has to
>>>>> combine more complexity in a new simplicity, and in my view, p2p does
>>>>> that,
>>>>> it solves a typical problem whereby in centralized systems, more
>>>>> adherents
>>>>> become a drain, while in p2p, they contribute more resources for the
>>>>> benefit
>>>>> of the overall system,
>>>>>
>>>>> Michel
>>>>>
>>>>>  On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 7:36 PM, Ryan Lanham
>>>>> <rlanham1963 at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> There is something that needs to be said about complexity.  P2P is
>>>>>> anti-complex transactions for the increase of utility//value.  I don't
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> a mature idea here, but there is something about simplicity /
>>>>>> complexiity
>>>>>> that makes P2P different.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ryan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 7:32 AM, Michel Bauwens <
>>>>>> michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> here are a few definitions:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) peer to peer is a form of human dynamic and relationship in which
>>>>>>> human permissionlessly aggregate around the creation of common value,
>>>>>>> resulting in peer production
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, Stan, peer production, objectively defined, is an instantiation
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> the p2p dynamic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This relationship works according to the principle: from each what he
>>>>>>> can, to each what he needs ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are 3 other types of human relationship, equality matching
>>>>>>> (gift
>>>>>>> and reciprocity), authority ranking, and market pricing ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Historically, each of these <are> related to ideologies, though they
>>>>>>> are not the same.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, where does ideology come in for the p2pfoundation, in my vision?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because, we do not just 'research' p2p, but also 'promote' it, in
>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>> words, there is a preferential choice for that dynamic, wherever it
>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>> occur, and in my case, I go further, since I want to make it the
>>>>>>> dominant
>>>>>>> (but not exclusive) dynamic in a future human society.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So there are different layers,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - an objective behaviour
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - a mode of production
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - values linked to the above, though people with different values can
>>>>>>> adhere to them and indeed do
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - a movement with a preferential attachnment, i.e. ideology, to these
>>>>>>> practices,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Michel
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 5:47 AM, Stan Rhodes <
>>>>>>> stanleyrhodes at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  I think there are three issues here:
>>>>>>>> 1) What is p2p?  How do we define it? Is it peer production?
>>>>>>>> 2) Does p2p ideology exist?  If so, how do we define it, and do all
>>>>>>>> people using p2p have that ideology?
>>>>>>>> 3) Does P2P Foundation ideology exist?  Do only certain people
>>>>>>>> "subscribe" to it, with the rest simply keeping tabs or organizing
>>>>>>>> around
>>>>>>>> the general interest area of p2p?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I see "peer production" as being describable in the forming language
>>>>>>>> of behavioral science (the science parts of anthro + soc + psych +
>>>>>>>> econ).  I
>>>>>>>> also think that is the only way it will be a useful and legitimate
>>>>>>>> term.  In
>>>>>>>> my opinion, terms such as capitalism, communism, socialism, and
>>>>>>>> similar are
>>>>>>>> scarcely useful at all.  They do not lend themselves to good
>>>>>>>> research, nor
>>>>>>>> understanding.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My answers to the questions above:
>>>>>>>> 1) p2p = peer production = "Voluntary production of a good that is
>>>>>>>> shared through a peer common."
>>>>>>>> 2) No, peer production in a process only, there is no inherent
>>>>>>>> ideology.
>>>>>>>> 3) Yes, although fuzzy.  Essentially, my take on the P2P Foundation
>>>>>>>> ideology is that p2p should be a) studied and b) applied to many
>>>>>>>> areas where
>>>>>>>> artificial scarcity is imposed--doing so will move everyone toward
>>>>>>>> freeing
>>>>>>>> artificially scarce goods, which generally improves social justice
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> sustainability.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To flesh out my first two points, I reply to Kevin's email, below.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Kevin Carson <
>>>>>>>> free.market.anticapitalist at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If P2P is an ideology--and I agree that it is--then it's an
>>>>>>>>> ideology
>>>>>>>>> that cuts across preexisting ideological divisions and is
>>>>>>>>> compatible
>>>>>>>>> with holding to older ideologies at the same time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The key components of P2P ideology are 1) eliminating artificial
>>>>>>>>> scarcity and the rents that come from it, and 2) the effects of
>>>>>>>>> network culture.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Most of us are agreed that eliminating rents from copyright and
>>>>>>>>> patents, and the bottom-up organizational forms made possible by
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> network, will have a revolutionary effect on the social system,
>>>>>>>>> regardless of what we otherwise favor as defining characteristics
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> that system.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Kevin Carson
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Kevin, thank you for presenting a definition of p2p ideology.  As
>>>>>>>> I'm
>>>>>>>> sure you expect, I have major criticisms.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Consider that people agreeing on the elimination of rents from "IP"
>>>>>>>> and advocating network forms does not really explain the emergence
>>>>>>>> of things
>>>>>>>> like Wikipedia and file-sharing.  Most people do not share things
>>>>>>>> because of
>>>>>>>> ideological points 1 and 2.  If we were to pool all PirateBay
>>>>>>>> seeders and
>>>>>>>> Wikipedia-contributors, I find it doubtful they'd be participating
>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>> of 1.  1--eliminating artificial scarcity and rents--is a result of
>>>>>>>> peer
>>>>>>>> production.  So is 2--the effects of network culture.  Network
>>>>>>>> culture
>>>>>>>> creates a reward system for contributing, and thus an attractive
>>>>>>>> incentive
>>>>>>>> to participate, but I would hesitate to call it ideology.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The fundamental action seems to be sharing.  Cascading effects
>>>>>>>> result
>>>>>>>> from the sharing, but are not the sources of action.  These effects
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> sometimes organized in a narrative about a movement of some sort,
>>>>>>>> and used
>>>>>>>> as a "hindsight ideology."  In other words, ideology is applied
>>>>>>>> after the
>>>>>>>> fact as a more noble reason for the original action, but it had no
>>>>>>>> influence
>>>>>>>> on the action.  It did not exist as an incentive--at least,
>>>>>>>> originally.
>>>>>>>> But, it makes a good narrative, far better than "I thought it might
>>>>>>>> get me
>>>>>>>> some kudos."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Technology determines both the barriers to entry for sharing, and
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> "hard" contraints of the network(s)' efficiency.  I figure most of
>>>>>>>> us agree
>>>>>>>> with that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I stand by my earlier claim that no ideology exists inherently in
>>>>>>>> p2p,
>>>>>>>> as in, the process of p2p production, also called peer production.
>>>>>>>>  I erred
>>>>>>>> in my earlier email, though, by not actually defining it.  Again, my
>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>> definition:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Voluntary production of a good that is shared through a peer
>>>>>>>> common."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am not sure what Michel's most current definition is.  I think I
>>>>>>>> will just use "peer production" instead of "p2p" until "p2p" is
>>>>>>>> agreed to
>>>>>>>> mean "peer production."  If it isn't, I want to make sure I use a
>>>>>>>> specific
>>>>>>>> word for a specific concept that we can all understand.  If my
>>>>>>>> definition
>>>>>>>> breaks with certain examples we'd all agree is peer production, or
>>>>>>>> is too
>>>>>>>> broad and would include examples we'd generally agree are not peer
>>>>>>>> production, then we can try to revise it accordingly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When everyone uses "p2p," it's not clear what they mean.  If we
>>>>>>>> agree
>>>>>>>> that p2p is peer production, and thus a process, it has no ideology
>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>> identity except those foisted upon it, and while those may change,
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> definition of the process itself does not.  Someone may suggest that
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> term "p2p" identifies a different concept than peer production. If
>>>>>>>> so, what?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If peer production is used as a strategy to build an information
>>>>>>>> commons, or to guarantee user freedom, it does not follow that peer
>>>>>>>> production has an ideology.  Instead, someone with an ideology is
>>>>>>>> using peer
>>>>>>>> production.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Peer production is not an identification unless it has a social
>>>>>>>> context and someone to interpret it, both of which vary.  Just
>>>>>>>> because--in a
>>>>>>>> particular snapshot of a particular time and place--a process is
>>>>>>>> associated
>>>>>>>> with an identity or ideology does not mean they're in any way
>>>>>>>> inherent to
>>>>>>>> the process itself.  This point is why I brought up methodological
>>>>>>>> nonviolence.   I could also bring up backyard gardening, or
>>>>>>>> fuel-maximizing
>>>>>>>> driving behavior, of vegetarianism.  While these may be associated
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> particular identities, those are only associations (and often,
>>>>>>>> stereotypes).  A reliable definition for concise discussion does not
>>>>>>>> contain
>>>>>>>> associations of identity or ideology.  There's a very good reason
>>>>>>>> not to:
>>>>>>>> you cannot be sure of motivations or ideologies.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Companies that use peer production are a good break test.  A company
>>>>>>>> may use peer production only because it is most profitable for them.
>>>>>>>>  Their
>>>>>>>> employees likely have a variety of motivations and ideologies as
>>>>>>>> well.  So
>>>>>>>> then, are they using peer production, or not?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I really want to stress that motivations and ideologies are hard to
>>>>>>>> measure and verify.  The few studies I have seen--sorry, I cannot
>>>>>>>> find them
>>>>>>>> right now, so they may still be in my "to-tag queue"--find that most
>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>> contribute to information commons primarily so they will be
>>>>>>>> recognized and
>>>>>>>> appreciated by that peer group.  I don't find anything wrong with
>>>>>>>> that, but
>>>>>>>> it highlights the difficulty in assuming that associated ideologies
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> primary motivating forces.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please feel invited to beat on my definition of peer production
>>>>>>>> ("voluntary production of a good that is shared through a peer
>>>>>>>> common"),
>>>>>>>> particularly with examples that make or break it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -- Stan
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>



-- 
-- 
Sam Rose
Social Synergy
Tel:+1(517) 639-1552
Cel: +1-(517)-974-6451
skype: samuelrose
email: samuel.rose at gmail.com
http://socialsynergyweb.com
http://socialsynergyweb.org/culturing
http://flowsbook.panarchy.com/
http://socialmediaclassroom.com
http://localfoodsystems.org
http://notanemployee.net
http://communitywiki.org

"The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human
ambition." - Carl Sagan