Yahoo奇摩 網頁搜尋

搜尋結果

  1. 7. Put people into an open system and they’ll automatically want to contribute: People take great care in making the articles objective, accurate, and easy to understand [on Wikipedia] (74). 8. When attacked, centralized organizations tend to become even more centralized: As we saw in the case of the Apaches and the P2P players, when attacked ...

  2. 2020年7月19日 · The game ends when someone wins. An infinite game, on the other hand, is played to keep the game going. It does not terminate because there is no winner. Finite games require rules that remain constant. The game fails if the rules change during the game. Altering rules during play is unforgivable, the very definition of unfairness.

  3. Technical Description. "DHTs obviated the server from P2P networks. A DHT is a hash table that partitions the keyspace and distributes the parts across a set of nodes. For any new content added to the network, a hash (k) is calculated and a message is sent to any node participating in the DHT. This message is forwarded from node to node until ...

    • Definition
    • Characteristics
    • Typology
    • Discussion 1: Description
    • Discussion 2: Details
    • Discussion 3: Peer Governance in General
    • Examples
    • Discussion
    • Key Books to Read

    Vasilis Kostakis: "Peer governance is a new mode of governance and bottom-up mode ofparticipative decision-making that is being experimented in peer projects, such asWikipedia and FLOSS (Bauwens, 2005a, and 2005b). Thus peer governance is the way thatpeer production, the process in which common value is produced, is managed."

    Vasilis Kostakis: 1. "Peer governance’s main characteristics are the Equipotentiality, i.e. the fact thatin a peer project all the participants have an equal ability to contribute, althoughthat not all the participants have the same skills and abilities (Bauwens, 2005a,and 2005b); the Heterarchy as a form of community; and the Holoptismi.e. theabil...

    Typology of Commons Regulation

    1. Source: The Commons: Year One of the Global Commons Movement by Silke Helfrich (29. Januar 2011)

    Three Levels of Governance (in the context of forking); from the article: Code Forking, Governance, and Sustainability in Open Source Software By Linus Nyman, Juho Lindman:

    Steve Weber on the Governance of Peer Production projects

    Steve Weber: "When I use the term "governance" in this discussion, I am using it in the way it is used in international relations. In that context "governance" is not government, it is typically not authoritative, and in fact it is not about governing in a traditional sense as much as it is about setting parameters for voluntary relationships among autonomous parties. Given that perspective, the central question becomes, How has the open source process used technology along with both new- and...

    Felix Stadler on the Meritocratic Leadership in Peer Production

    = leadership/hierarchy in peer production is not egalitarian, but meritocratic Felix Stadler: "The openness in open source is often misunderstood as egalitarian collaboration. However, FOSS is primarily open in the sense that anyone can appropriate the results, and do with them whatever he or she wants (within the legal/normative framework set out by the license). This is what the commons, a shared resource, is about. Free appropriation. Not everyone can contribute. Everyone is free, indeed,...

    Jeremy Malcolm: the balance between hierarchy and decentralisation

    Source: Chapter 4 of the book, Multi-Stakeholder Governance and the Internet Governance Forum. Jeremy Malcolm. Terminus, 2008 Jeremy Malcolm: “The common conception of most open source software projects as being anarchistic is actually a myth. In most open source software development projects, anarchy is balanced with hierarchical control. It is in fact common for open source software development projects to be governed by a “Benevolent Dictatorfor life” (or BDFL). These are found in projects...

    Characteristics of successfull collaborative projects

    " characteristics of successful free software/open source communities: 1. open and widespread membership based upon participation 1. geographically distributed, asynchronous, networked collaboration 1. project transparency, particularly open, recorded dialog and peer review of project materials, 1. discussion and decisions 1. a compelling foundational artifact to organize participation and build upon 1. collaborative, iteratively clarified, living documents and project artifacts 1. a mechanis...

    Typology

    From Iandoli, Klein, & Zollo , summarized by Vasilis Kostakis: "in order virtual communities to work properly, three important governance problems have to be dealt with: • Attention governance: we must attract a considerable number of users, reduce the risk of premature convergence and enable sufficient exploration of the search space by countervailing the influences of informational pressure, social pressure and common knowledge; • Participation governance: we must retain a critical mass of...

    Bob Jessop on Governance and Meta-Governance

    Bob Jessop uses the similar term of 'governance', but I believe we should distinguish peer governance as the management of bottom-up peer groups, from the extension towards multiple stakeholders of the governance of existing institutions. A further cause of confusion is that the general literature uses governance often in a generic way, often barely distinguishable from “government" but also in specific ways that have no relationship with peer governance such as in the case of ‘corporate gove...

    Paul B. Hartzog on Panarchy

    Paul B. Hartzog at http://panarchy.com/Members/PaulBHartzog/Writings/Features "Governance in Panarchy is characterized by the primacy of relational behaviors among governance organizations. Some of these organizations may be traditional nation-states, at least for a while. It is likely that nation-states will be replaced by numerous other governance organizations that demonstrate a better "fit" with their constituents' needs than do today's national governments. Numerous political scholars (R...

    Examples

    European Internet Self-Regulation Proposal A concrete example of a proposed peer governance scheme for the European internet: The proposal is from a series of internet players and advocacy groups, who have gotten together in order to promote, and practice, peer governance of the internet in Europe, and aim to convince the EU of the value of this approach: “Flexible, decentralized, evolving, the network is very similar to the internet in its way of functioning. - A decentralized network In thi...

    Open Source Software projects are not self-governing

    Charles Connell: "Being self-organizing and having central control are not completely incompatible--sort of. Imagine a group of random castaways marooned on a desert island. Initially there is no hierarchy to this group. But the group may choose to elect a leader or committee to guide them. They would choose as leaders the people who seem most able to help them survive. The castaways would be self-organizing, yet have established some central control. This is analogous to an open-source proje...

    Cyberchiefs. Autonomy and Authority in Online Tribes. Mathieu O’Neil. Macmillan/Pluto Press, 2009. Excellent monograph.

  4. 2014年6月4日 · P2P mapping enables new types of interactivity and personalization, while raising the challenge of synthesizing information from diverse sources and standpoints. Maps are a visually rich form of graph data, with some technical challenges related to Semantic Web standards and protocol. A more fluid and distributed "wiki" style approach is ...

  5. 1. By Timothy Allen [1] : "The Hierarchy theory is a dialect of general systems theory. It has emerged as part of a movement toward a general science of complexity. Rooted in the work of economist, Herbert Simon, chemist, Ilya Prigogine, and psychologist, Jean Piaget, hierarchy theory focuses upon levels of organization and issues of scale.

  6. Jess Scully: "Taiwan’s civic hackers were organized around a leaderless collective called g0v (pronounced “gov zero.”) Many believed in radical transparency, in throwing opaque processes open to the light, and in the idea that everyone who is affected by a decision should have a say in it. They preferred establishing consensus to running ...