As we have seen from previous posts, the new media du jour is produsage: the rise of consumers producing things they want to consume for themselves. Citizen Journalism is an example of this process: instead of consuming only media fed to them by industrial journalism, people are instead writing and collaborating online. The same sort of process occurs in the collaborative encyclopedia Wikipedia. One person creates a wiki page based on their knowledge in a certain area, and other users edit and add to this information as they see fit.
The main problem with produsage is that in allowing open production, the quality of the information posted and edited cannot be guaranteed. This is where the struggle between Professional and Amateur exists. A person who specialises in a specific field can be considered a professional, and thus a reliable source of information. However, a person who is genuinely interested in and has pursued the same topic, developing a large knowledge base in the process, is not considered reliable. WHY? Who defines professionals?
As Bruns points out:
Is an uncredentialed enthusiast, from amateur astronomers to local historians, from committed fans of Battlestar Galactica to the volunteer developers of open source software, to be considered as inherently less knowledgeable than ‘experts’ in the field?
‘Amateurs’, committed to their particular area of interest, with a large knowledge base to share on the topic, have coined the term ‘Pro-Am’, blurring the line between professional and amateur in their quest to improve sites such as Wikipedia with their knowledge. Sanger, however, as highlighted in Bruns, believes the line between professional and amateur is distinct. I, for one, have fallen victim to his theory.
Ever since I was five, I have been fascinated with Ancient Egypt. I watched documentaries, poured over library books, and nearly died of happiness in 1999, when the Queensland Museum held an exhibition featuring real mummies. I knew my stuff. From Ancient Egyptian myths and legends, to religion, warfare and everyday life, there was little information on this topic I didn’t devour.
In grade four, my class began learning about Ancient Egypt. I was, unsurprisingly, over the moon. Until the day my teacher (remaining nameless, as grudges still stand), informed the class as to the location of Ramases III’s burial chamber. She was wrong, so I corrected her – and promptly received detention. Parents were even called.
Now, I was right. But I was not the teacher. So I was punished.
Granted, a nine-year-old could be seen as a little different from a Pro-Am, but the basic stages of knowledge development are still there. I found a topic that I enthusiastically enjoyed and pursued, and developed a large knowledge base on that topic. When I dared to correct information presented by a ‘professional’, I was put down and punished.
Today, Pro-Ams are still facing criticism that their knowledge so enthusiastically learned is not reliable. However, as Bruns pointed out: experts and their expertise cover no more than the tips of the iceberg of human knowledge. No one person can know absolutely everything there is to know on a topic. By sharing and collaborating information on sites such as Wikipedia, Professionals and Amateurs come together to learn from each other.
As for the nameless teacher, I’ve nailed that chip to my shoulder.
A classic anecdote, Madelaine – and one which I think illustrates a point Bruns is arguing in his chapter on pro-ams. He discusses a flaw in Sanger’s appraisal of the lack of appreciation for the contribution of content to Wikipedia from boda fide experts. He identifies what Sanger views as two categories, namely experts and dilettantes. Of course, on this basis, your example would likely fall under the latter label.
But the injustice of your detention and the broader consequences for a hierarchy of contributors does not go unnoticed. As an alternative to Sanger’s determinative view, Bruns proposes a kind of continuum on which these notions might operate as opposing ends. In this instance, Madelaine, your teacher may not have had such solid grounds for reprimand. However, I’m inclined to mention a concern of Sanger’s which plays into how people might be identified along this continuum. Plenty of participation in produsage communities comes down to faith in the players, and, hopefully, when it comes to laying the cards on the pro-am table, everyone is open about what they are (and aren’t) holding!