RFC - peer production and work
Hi all Please find below a request for comments for a planned issue on peer production and work. This has been much delayed - my fault entirely. Rather than choose between 'work' and 'labour' I suggest using both at strategic junctures. We need to release this on June 3 to coincide with the COST action meeting... cheers Mathieu CFP Journal of Peer Production: Peer production and work Editors: Phoebe Moore (Middlesex University London) Mathieu O’Neil (University of Canberra) Stefano Zacchiroli (University Paris Diderot) The rise in the usage and delivery capacity of the Internet in the 1990s has led to the development of massively distributed online projects where self-governing volunteers collaboratively produce public goods. Notable examples include Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) projects such as Debian and GNOME, as well as the Wikipedia encyclopedia. These distributed practices have been characterised as peer production, crowdsourcing, mass customization, social production, co-configurative work, playbour, user-generated content, wikinomics, open innovation, participatory culture, produsage, and the wisdom of the crowd, amongst other terms. In peer production, labour is communal and outputs are orientated towards the further expansion of the commons, an ecology of production that aims to defy and resist the hierarchies and the rules of ownership that drive productive models within capitalism (Moore, 2011); while the commons, recursively, are the chief resource in this mode of production (Söderberg & O’Neil, 2014). Peer projects are ‘ethical’ as participation is primarily motivated by self-fulfillment and validated by a community of peers, rather than by earning wages. Their governance is ‘modular’, understood in a design sense (decomposable blocks sharing a common interface), but also in political-economy terms: participants oppose restricted ownership and control by individually socializing their works into commons. Conflicting interpretations of their societal impact have been articulated (O’Neil, 2015). Skeptics view the abjuration of exclusive property rights over the goods they produce as irrelevant, and ethical-modular projects as increasing worker exploitation: participants' passionate labour occurs at the expense of less fortunate others, who do not have the disposable income, cultural capital, or family support to engage in unpaid labourwork (Moore & Taylor, 2009; Huws, 2013). In contrast, reformists, often hailing from a management perspective, suggest that the co-optation of communal labour by firms will improve business practices and society (Arvidsson, 2008; Demil et al., 2015). Finally activists celebrate the abjuration of exclusive property rights, and present ethical-modular projects as key actors in a historical process leading to the supersession of capitalism and hierarchy (Kostakis & Bauwens, 2014). This last perspective raises a central challenge, which is the avoidance of purely utopian thinking. In other words, how can commons-based peer production reach deeply into daily life? How can ‘already existing non-capitalist economic processes’ be strengthened, ‘new non-capitalist enterprises’ be built, and ‘communal subjects’ be established (Gibson-Graham, 2003: 157)? An increasingly large free public goods and services sector could well cohabit in a plural economy with employment in cooperatives, paid independent work, and the wage-earning of the commercial sector. However analysis of peer production typically eschews mundane considerations such as living wages, benefits, job security, working conditions, work-induced medical conditions, and debates on labour organization. How can peer production operate as a sustainable practice enabling people to live, if labour and work issues are not formally addressed? To advance the knowledge, analysis, and regulation of work and labour in peer production this special issue of the Journal of Peer Production, titled Peer Production and Work, calls for papers in two linked areas: Peer production in a paid work society Nowadays firms extract ever-more value from the unpaid labour of volunteer 'prosumers' (Frayssé & O'Neil, 2015), or attempt to monetize crowdsourced labour. The paradigmatic example is Amazon’s Mechanical Turk labourers (popularly known as ‘Turkers’, ‘cloud workers’ or ‘click workers’) who accomplish micro-tasks such as tagging and labeling images, transcribing audio or video recordings, and categorizing products. This extreme modularization of work results in their status being that of independent contractors rather than employees with rights, necessitating novel means of protection and redress (Irani & Silberman, 2013). Finally capitalist firms have increasingly engaged with ethical-modular organizations, in some cases paying wages to participants. Such labour is thus both ‘alienated’, or sold, and ‘communal’, as workers freely cooperate to produce commons. Do traditional categories such as exploitation and alienation still apply? Topics may include, but are not limited to: * Peer production and the global political economy * Peer production and the rise of precarious work * Peer workers and possibilities for worker organisation * Does the autonomy of peer workers cause conflict in firms, and how is it resolved? * What strategies do firms adopt to co-opt peer production (e.g., ‘hackhathons’)? * Do tensions around property rights emerge? * Subjectivity in peer production * Peer production and intellectual property, coded work Paid work in peer production projects How does paid labour affect ethical P2P projects? Mansell and Berdou (2010) argue that firms supporting the work of programmers who contribute to volunteer projects, to the commons, will not affect the ‘cooperative spirit’ of projects; nor can this support prevent the results of labour from being socialized into commons. Is this always the case? Topics may include, but are not limited to: * How do peer projects deal with the presence of paid or waged labour? * Is this topic discussed within peer production projects? In what way? * What benefits do paid or waged workers enjoy in peer projects? * How does paid labour affect peer production projects? Suggested timeline: CFP released: June 2015 500 word-abstract due: 30 July 2015 Notification to authors: 30 August 2015 Submission of full paper: 31 December 2015 Reviews to authors: 15 February 2016 Revised papers: 30 April 2016 Signals due: 30 May 2016 Issue release: June/July 2016 Submission guidelines: Submission abstracts of 300-500 words are due by 30 July, 2015 and should be sent to <[email protected]>. All peer reviewed papers will be reviewed according to Journal of Peer Production guidelines. Full papers and materials (peer reviewed papers around 8,000 words;"tales of toil" in the Processed World tradition up to 4,000 words) are due by December 31st, 2015 for review. References Arvidsson, A. (2008). The ethical economy of consumer coproduction. Journal of Macromarketing, 8, 326-338. Demil, B., Lecoq. X. & Warnier, E. (2015). The capabilities of bazaar governance: Investigating the advantage of business models based on open communities. Journal of Organizational Change Management, in press. Frayssé, O. & O'Neil, M. (2015) Digital labour and prosumer capitalism: The US matrix. Basingstoke: Palgrave, in press. Gibson-Graham, J.K. (2003). Enabling ethical economies: Cooperativism and class. Critical Sociology, 29, 123-164. Huws, U. (2013). The underpinnings of class in the digital age: Living, labour and value. Socialist Register, 50, 80-107. Irani, L. & Silberman, M. (2013). Turkopticon: Interrupting worker invisibility in Amazon Mechanical Turk. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Kostakis, V. & Bauwens, M. (2014) Network society and future scenarios for a collaborative economy. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Mansell, R. & Berdou, E. (2010). Political economy, the internet and FL/OSS development. In Hunsinger, J., Allen, M. & Klastrup, L. (Eds.) International handbook of Internet research (pp. 341-362). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Springer. Moore, P. (2011). Subjectivity in the Ecologies of P2P Production. The Journal of Fibreculture FCJ-119. Online, available: http://seventeen.fibreculturejournal.org/fcj-119-peer-to-peer-production-a-r... Moore, P. & Taylor, P. A. (2009). Exploitation of the self in community-based software production: Workers’ freedoms or firm foundations? Capital & Class, 99 – 117. O’Neil, M. (2015). Labour out of control: The political economy of capitalist and ethical organizations. Organization Studies, in press. Söderberg, J. & O’Neil, M. (2014). Introduction. Book of Peer Production (pp. 2-3). Göteborg: NSU Press.
Hi Mathieu, all, On 01/06/15 09:48, Mathieu ONeil wrote:
Please find below a request for comments for a planned issue on peer production and work.
I'm somewhat astonished at the following paragraph:
*Peer production in a paid work society*
Nowadays firms extract ever-more value from the unpaid labour of volunteer 'prosumers' (Frayssé & O'Neil, 2015), or attempt to monetize crowdsourced labour. The paradigmatic example is Amazon’s Mechanical Turk labourers (popularly known as ‘Turkers’, ‘cloud workers’ or ‘click workers’) who accomplish micro-tasks such as tagging and labeling images, transcribing audio or video recordings, and categorizing products.
What does Amazon Mechanical Turk have to do with peer production? As far as I can see, nothing. There are no peers, no commons is created, and all work is paid (though badly) rather than volunteered freely. If the focus is on monetizing the unpaid work of volunteers, proprietary platforms such as Facebook or Youtube might be a better example. Otherwise the call reads good to me. Best regards Christian -- |--------- Dr. Christian Siefkes --------- [email protected] --------- | Homepage: http://www.siefkes.net/ | Blog: http://www.keimform.de/ | Wie Produktion zur Nebensache wurde: www.keimform.de/2013/freie-quellen-1/ | Why Production No Longer Worries Us: www.keimform.de/2013/free-sources-1/ |------------------------------------------- OpenPGP Key ID: 0x346452D8 -- Being rich doesn't look like as much fun as it used to be. In the old days you got rich, and then stopped working and concentrated very hard on having a very good time in very expensive ways. Now people get rich, and then just work harder to try to become even richer. Sometimes they play golf.... Doesn't sound like a bundle of laughs to me, but there you are. -- Michael Marshall Smith, Only Forward
From: Christian Siefkes <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [JoPP-Public] RFC - peer production and work Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2015 18:34:26 +0200
Hi Mathieu, all,
On 01/06/15 09:48, Mathieu ONeil wrote:
Please find below a request for comments for a planned issue on peer production and work.
I'm somewhat astonished at the following paragraph:
*Peer production in a paid work society*
Nowadays firms extract ever-more value from the unpaid labour of volunteer 'prosumers' (Frayssé & O'Neil, 2015), or attempt to monetize crowdsourced labour. The paradigmatic example is Amazon’s Mechanical Turk labourers (popularly known as ‘Turkers’, ‘cloud workers’ or ‘click workers’) who accomplish micro-tasks such as tagging and labeling images, transcribing audio or video recordings, and categorizing products.
What does Amazon Mechanical Turk have to do with peer production? As far as I can see, nothing. There are no peers, no commons is created, and all work is paid (though badly) rather than volunteered freely. If the focus is on monetizing the unpaid work of volunteers, proprietary platforms such as Facebook or Youtube might be a better example.
Otherwise the call reads good to me.
I find Amazon Mechanical Turk a kind of Evil Twin of CBPP: even though it is completely different in its trajectory, it does have many structural similarities with CBPP. For instance it exhibits the criteria given by Benkler for dealing with complicated tasks through peer production practices: 1. modularity (easy integration of contributions) 2. granularity (small and big tasks are both available) 3. self-selection of tasks (participants can make autonomous decisions about what they take on) It is different from Facebook and Youtube in that big and complicated goals can be reached and it is oriented towards organising cooperation (well, production/exploitation, but still) in order to realise an end product. In Here Comes Everybody, Shirky proposes a typology of Sharing/Cooperation/Collective Action, where Facebook and Youtbe would be sharing and AMT would be cooperation, just like Linux kernel development or making Wikipedia. So maybe it is an abomination to call AMT peer production but including it in your analytical framework of PP and work/labour is analytically advantageous, I guess, because you can learn how capital appropriates PP practices. Well, it is just my quick take on it -- I am happy to see some theoretical debate on the list, we should do this more. :) -- maxigas, kiberpunk FA00 8129 13E9 2617 C614 0901 7879 63BC 287E D166 http://research.metatron.ai/ A: Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion. Q: Why is top-posting bad?
Hi Christian, Maxigas, all- I agree with both of you! :-) AMT is not a focus of the call but it was indeed suggested to us as a good example of the co-optation of the p2p method of production by exploitative interests. cheers Mathieu ________________________________________ From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of maxigas <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 5:35 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [JoPP-Public] RFC - peer production and work From: Christian Siefkes <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [JoPP-Public] RFC - peer production and work Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2015 18:34:26 +0200
Hi Mathieu, all,
On 01/06/15 09:48, Mathieu ONeil wrote:
Please find below a request for comments for a planned issue on peer production and work.
I'm somewhat astonished at the following paragraph:
*Peer production in a paid work society*
Nowadays firms extract ever-more value from the unpaid labour of volunteer 'prosumers' (Frayssé & O'Neil, 2015), or attempt to monetize crowdsourced labour. The paradigmatic example is Amazon’s Mechanical Turk labourers (popularly known as ‘Turkers’, ‘cloud workers’ or ‘click workers’) who accomplish micro-tasks such as tagging and labeling images, transcribing audio or video recordings, and categorizing products.
What does Amazon Mechanical Turk have to do with peer production? As far as I can see, nothing. There are no peers, no commons is created, and all work is paid (though badly) rather than volunteered freely. If the focus is on monetizing the unpaid work of volunteers, proprietary platforms such as Facebook or Youtube might be a better example.
Otherwise the call reads good to me.
I find Amazon Mechanical Turk a kind of Evil Twin of CBPP: even though it is completely different in its trajectory, it does have many structural similarities with CBPP. For instance it exhibits the criteria given by Benkler for dealing with complicated tasks through peer production practices: 1. modularity (easy integration of contributions) 2. granularity (small and big tasks are both available) 3. self-selection of tasks (participants can make autonomous decisions about what they take on) It is different from Facebook and Youtube in that big and complicated goals can be reached and it is oriented towards organising cooperation (well, production/exploitation, but still) in order to realise an end product. In Here Comes Everybody, Shirky proposes a typology of Sharing/Cooperation/Collective Action, where Facebook and Youtbe would be sharing and AMT would be cooperation, just like Linux kernel development or making Wikipedia. So maybe it is an abomination to call AMT peer production but including it in your analytical framework of PP and work/labour is analytically advantageous, I guess, because you can learn how capital appropriates PP practices. Well, it is just my quick take on it -- I am happy to see some theoretical debate on the list, we should do this more. :) -- maxigas, kiberpunk FA00 8129 13E9 2617 C614 0901 7879 63BC 287E D166 http://research.metatron.ai/ A: Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion. Q: Why is top-posting bad? _______________________________________________ JoPP-Public mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/jopp-public
I wonder if the call should not also address the "sharing" economy and its companies (Uber etc.) / Peter On 1 Jun 2015, at 09:48, Mathieu ONeil <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi all
Please find below a request for comments for a planned issue on peer production and work. This has been much delayed - my fault entirely. Rather than choose between 'work' and 'labour' I suggest using both at strategic junctures. We need to release this on June 3 to coincide with the COST action meeting...
cheers
Mathieu
CFP Journal of Peer Production: Peer production and work
Editors: Phoebe Moore (Middlesex University London) Mathieu O’Neil (University of Canberra) Stefano Zacchiroli (University Paris Diderot)
The rise in the usage and delivery capacity of the Internet in the 1990s has led to the development of massively distributed online projects where self-governing volunteers collaboratively produce public goods. Notable examples include Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) projects such as Debian and GNOME, as well as the Wikipedia encyclopedia. These distributed practices have been characterised as peer production, crowdsourcing, mass customization, social production, co-configurative work, playbour, user-generated content, wikinomics, open innovation, participatory culture, produsage, and the wisdom of the crowd, amongst other terms. In peer production, labour is communal and outputs are orientated towards the further expansion of the commons, an ecology of production that aims to defy and resist the hierarchies and the rules of ownership that drive productive models within capitalism (Moore, 2011); while the commons, recursively, are the chief resource in this mode of production (Söderberg & O’Neil, 2014).
Peer projects are ‘ethical’ as participation is primarily motivated by self-fulfillment and validated by a community of peers, rather than by earning wages. Their governance is ‘modular’, understood in a design sense (decomposable blocks sharing a common interface), but also in political-economy terms: participants oppose restricted ownership and control by individually socializing their works into commons. Conflicting interpretations of their societal impact have been articulated (O’Neil, 2015). Skeptics view the abjuration of exclusive property rights over the goods they produce as irrelevant, and ethical-modular projects as increasing worker exploitation: participants' passionate labour occurs at the expense of less fortunate others, who do not have the disposable income, cultural capital, or family support to engage in unpaid labourwork (Moore & Taylor, 2009; Huws, 2013). In contrast, reformists, often hailing from a management perspective, suggest that the co-optation of communal labour by firms will improve business practices and society (Arvidsson, 2008; Demil et al., 2015). Finally activists celebrate the abjuration of exclusive property rights, and present ethical-modular projects as key actors in a historical process leading to the supersession of capitalism and hierarchy (Kostakis & Bauwens, 2014).
This last perspective raises a central challenge, which is the avoidance of purely utopian thinking. In other words, how can commons-based peer production reach deeply into daily life? How can ‘already existing non-capitalist economic processes’ be strengthened, ‘new non-capitalist enterprises’ be built, and ‘communal subjects’ be established (Gibson-Graham, 2003: 157)? An increasingly large free public goods and services sector could well cohabit in a plural economy with employment in cooperatives, paid independent work, and the wage-earning of the commercial sector. However analysis of peer production typically eschews mundane considerations such as living wages, benefits, job security, working conditions, work-induced medical conditions, and debates on labour organization. How can peer production operate as a sustainable practice enabling people to live, if labour and work issues are not formally addressed?
To advance the knowledge, analysis, and regulation of work and labour in peer production this special issue of the Journal of Peer Production, titled Peer Production and Work, calls for papers in two linked areas:
Peer production in a paid work society Nowadays firms extract ever-more value from the unpaid labour of volunteer 'prosumers' (Frayssé & O'Neil, 2015), or attempt to monetize crowdsourced labour. The paradigmatic example is Amazon’s Mechanical Turk labourers (popularly known as ‘Turkers’, ‘cloud workers’ or ‘click workers’) who accomplish micro-tasks such as tagging and labeling images, transcribing audio or video recordings, and categorizing products. This extreme modularization of work results in their status being that of independent contractors rather than employees with rights, necessitating novel means of protection and redress (Irani & Silberman, 2013). Finally capitalist firms have increasingly engaged with ethical-modular organizations, in some cases paying wages to participants. Such labour is thus both ‘alienated’, or sold, and ‘communal’, as workers freely cooperate to produce commons. Do traditional categories such as exploitation and alienation still apply? Topics may include, but are not limited to: Peer production and the global political economy Peer production and the rise of precarious work Peer workers and possibilities for worker organisation Does the autonomy of peer workers cause conflict in firms, and how is it resolved? What strategies do firms adopt to co-opt peer production (e.g., ‘hackhathons’)? Do tensions around property rights emerge? Subjectivity in peer production Peer production and intellectual property, coded work Paid work in peer production projects How does paid labour affect ethical P2P projects? Mansell and Berdou (2010) argue that firms supporting the work of programmers who contribute to volunteer projects, to the commons, will not affect the ‘cooperative spirit’ of projects; nor can this support prevent the results of labour from being socialized into commons. Is this always the case? Topics may include, but are not limited to: How do peer projects deal with the presence of paid or waged labour? Is this topic discussed within peer production projects? In what way? What benefits do paid or waged workers enjoy in peer projects? How does paid labour affect peer production projects? Suggested timeline: CFP released: June 2015 500 word-abstract due: 30 July 2015 Notification to authors: 30 August 2015 Submission of full paper: 31 December 2015 Reviews to authors: 15 February 2016 Revised papers: 30 April 2016 Signals due: 30 May 2016 Issue release: June/July 2016
Submission guidelines: Submission abstracts of 300-500 words are due by 30 July, 2015 and should be sent to <[email protected]>. All peer reviewed papers will be reviewed according to Journal of Peer Production guidelines. Full papers and materials (peer reviewed papers around 8,000 words;"tales of toil" in the Processed World tradition up to 4,000 words) are due by December 31st, 2015 for review.
References Arvidsson, A. (2008). The ethical economy of consumer coproduction. Journal of Macromarketing, 8, 326-338. Demil, B., Lecoq. X. & Warnier, E. (2015). The capabilities of bazaar governance: Investigating the advantage of business models based on open communities. Journal of Organizational Change Management, in press. Frayssé, O. & O'Neil, M. (2015) Digital labour and prosumer capitalism: The US matrix. Basingstoke: Palgrave, in press. Gibson-Graham, J.K. (2003). Enabling ethical economies: Cooperativism and class. Critical Sociology, 29, 123-164. Huws, U. (2013). The underpinnings of class in the digital age: Living, labour and value. Socialist Register, 50, 80-107. Irani, L. & Silberman, M. (2013). Turkopticon: Interrupting worker invisibility in Amazon Mechanical Turk. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Kostakis, V. & Bauwens, M. (2014) Network society and future scenarios for a collaborative economy. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Mansell, R. & Berdou, E. (2010). Political economy, the internet and FL/OSS development. In Hunsinger, J., Allen, M. & Klastrup, L. (Eds.) International handbook of Internet research(pp. 341-362). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Springer. Moore, P. (2011). Subjectivity in the Ecologies of P2P Production. The Journal of Fibreculture FCJ-119. Online, available: http://seventeen.fibreculturejournal.org/fcj-119-peer-to-peer-production-a-r... Moore, P. & Taylor, P. A. (2009). Exploitation of the self in community-based software production: Workers’ freedoms or firm foundations? Capital & Class, 99 – 117. O’Neil, M. (2015). Labour out of control: The political economy of capitalist and ethical organizations. Organization Studies, in press. Söderberg, J. & O’Neil, M. (2014). Introduction. Book of Peer Production (pp. 2-3). Göteborg: NSU Press.
_______________________________________________ JoPP-Public mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/jopp-public
participants (4)
-
Christian Siefkes -
Dr. Peter Troxler -
Mathieu ONeil -
maxigas