[P2P-F] a new type of platform?

Sun Jul 31 15:21:49 CEST 2011

agreed Michael, as you say:

"I would personally be very cautious in any attempt to transpose notions of
"open" or even p2p directly to traditional/indigenous societies without
first undertaking a major process of cultural understanding and
translation."

On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 3:44 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>wrote:

> **
> Michel and all,
>
> Thanks for the pointer Michel but I'm not sure that those examples are very
> pertinent in this context.  I think that indigenous traditional knowledge as
> has been pointed out is highly contextual as is its documentation or
> formalization and is quite different in form and substance from  "open
> information/open data" as we in western developed countries understand this.
>
> One element of this knowledge is that there may be cultural restrictions on
> its access/use within the specific cultural context i.e. there may be
> cultural limitions on who can use what knowledge and for what purposes and
> to disregard these limitations/practices without full regard for the owners
> of the traditional knowledge is not only deeply disrespectful but it might
> be very destructive of the local culture and even on the knowledge that is
> being "captured".
>
> One other important consideration here is that for many indigenous peoples
> their knowledge may be a resource, in many cases the only resource available
> to them in providing a means for participating in the larger society.  Thus
> calls/demands for "open knowledge" in these instances may be an updated form
> of colonialism -- acting in such a way as to deprive indigenous people of
> the opportunity to take some material advantage of their cultural and
> environment parallel to similar processes where other resources such as land
> or raw materials might similarly have been stolen by outsiders.
>
> I would personally be very cautious in any attempt to transpose notions of
> "open" or even p2p directly to traditional/indigenous societies without
> first undertaking a major process of cultural understanding and translation.
>
> Best,
>
> Mike
>
>  -----Original Message-----
> *From:* p2p-foundation-bounces at lists.ourproject.org [mailto:
> p2p-foundation-bounces at lists.ourproject.org] *On Behalf Of *Michel Bauwens
> *Sent:* Saturday, July 30, 2011 2:43 PM
> *To:* P2P Foundation mailing list
> *Cc:* nina
> *Subject:* Re: [P2P-F] a new type of platform?
>
> Hi Devin,
>
> THere is indeed a long tradition of traditional people using documentation
> and networks to further their cause,
>
> for them as for us, it's part of an arsenal of means they can use,
>
> but the context of technology use matters, i.e. is it under their own
> control, or not, is it used or not, for the benefit of outside forces,
>
> Michael Gurstein, at OKCON11, pointed to some famous case studies where
> 'open documentation' was used preferentially by those already privileged,
> thus increasing rather than decreasing power differentials...
>
> Michel
>
> On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 11:29 PM, Devin Balkind <
> devin at sarapisfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> I don't think you're making an argument against documentation, but you are
>> making an argument for access to resources.  I consider knowledge a resource
>> and it's documentation one of many ways to make that resource useable.
>>
>> The following is from the website you cited:
>>
>>  *Example: The Potato Park community biocultural database (Peru)*
>>>
>>> A database of potato varieties and biocultural systems became necessary
>>> to hold the information collected by communities through action research.
>>> The database uses free (open source) software to administer data entry,
>>> access and use, since this is compatible with customary practices of free
>>> and open sharing of knowledge. The free software DRUPAL platform is creating
>>> a database based on three Andean principles of reciprocity, duality and
>>> equilibrium. The database also uses GIS technology and audiovisual equipment
>>> for recording resources and knowledge.
>>>
>> http://biocultural.iied.org/tools/community-biocultural-registers
>>
>> Since there is no link to the dataset and considering your post, I'm
>> wondering whether you think this database should be public and accessible
>> via the internet.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 11:35 AM, jmp <m.pedersen at lancaster.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 28/07/11 09:20, Karl Robillard wrote:
>>> > Nicholas,
>>> >
>>> > The importance of OSE is not primarily in what is being produced, but
>>> *how* it
>>> > is being produced.  The knowledge of production is being openly shared
>>> with
>>> > the expressed goal of replication and abundance.  Doing this is just as
>>> useful
>>> > for producing food forests as it is for tractors.  If you see that
>>> traditional
>>> > knowledge is disappearing then you only need to document and share it
>>> to stop
>>> > that from happening.
>>>
>>> For info / some related implications, from a different perspective.
>>>
>>> The latter part - especially "... then you only ..." - parallels a
>>> common and widespread conception of traditional knowledge that is
>>> problematic, in its reduction, at least insofar as the context of
>>> indigenous people is concerned. It ignores the material and physical
>>> reality of knowledge as doing: traditional knowledge is practices
>>> embedded in bio-cultural systems -- not merely information that can be
>>> documented ex-situ.
>>>
>>> It is precisely this reduced conception of traditional knowledge - i.e.
>>> that it can be documented to protect it - that many indigenous movements
>>> and empathetic researchers are arguing and working against, because it
>>> is devastating to many communities (another set of socio-economic
>>> conflicts arises from the so-called benefit sharing that accompanies
>>> this approach, but that is a tangent here).
>>>
>>> It is a conception manifested in the UN, WIPO, state and corporate
>>> "intellectual property" approaches to the "protection" of traditional
>>> knowledge. Indeed, it forms central part of contemporary international
>>> political economy - and market expansion - as it has the purpose of
>>> spreading the very the idea of private, exclusive ownership of knowledge
>>> and intellectual property generally, while seeking credibility through
>>> "protection" of minorities and vulnerable groups, whose cultures in turn
>>> are undermined as market relations or the cash economy advances onto
>>> their territory. The protection myth, in this context, functions to
>>> extract information (recipes, species info etc.) from knowledge
>>> practices, but let's the bio-cultural systems in which they exist
>>> wither. Some background info here: http://biocultural.iied.org/
>>>
>>> Documenting some "knowledge" does nothing automagically for a knowledge
>>> practice, except that in the case of traditional, medicinal knowledge
>>> practices, it - with obvious intentions and effects - facilitates
>>> commercialisation of the information extracted from a given knowledge
>>> practice. Museums are full of dead knowledge.
>>>
>>> In other words, you can document as much, say, shamanic knowledge as you
>>> like, but if there is no access to forest, land and the required
>>> resources - i.e. bio-cultural systems - in which those knowledge
>>> practices traditionally unfold, then it is merely information in an
>>> abstract form on paper (or in bits).
>>>
>>> If you want to preserve knowledge practices about living on and with the
>>> land - i.e. about growing stuff - then the first step is to secure
>>> access to land in order to be able to practice. Knowing by description
>>> how to grow something won't put food on the table unless there is land
>>> to practice on. Knowing by acquaintance won't either, hence many
>>> cultures facing land grabs, deforestation, climate change etc. are
>>> losing their traditional knowledge not because it is no longer known, or
>>> undocumented, but simply because they become uprooted and have nowhere
>>> to grow, to end on ecologicals metaphors.
>>>
>>> -martin
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> P2P Foundation - Mailing list
>>> http://www.p2pfoundation.net
>>> https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Devin Balkind
>> Director, Sarapis Foundation
>> devin at sarapisfoundation.org
>> @devinbalkind
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> P2P Foundation - Mailing list
>> http://www.p2pfoundation.net
>> https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
>
> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
> http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
>
> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> P2P Foundation - Mailing list
> http://www.p2pfoundation.net
> https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
>
>

-- 
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20110731/d9d4acf7/attachment.htm 