During a visit to Toronto, Ontario two years ago, I searched high and low for an ATM that would accept my check card so that I could withdraw some much needed Canadian money. I simply had to find an ATM that had the same bank system symbols (e.g., Star, Plus) as my own credit union. If only I had had a hand-held computer or some other technical tool at the time, I would have saved precious moments during my short vacation by finding the right bank machine to fit my need much sooner. This is one of the many benefits of the digital age that Howard Rheingold (2002) discussed in Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution. Moreover, Rheingold shared how in the greater scheme of things, technology should be a tool to not only make one’s life easier (not lazier), but to be better connected with each other. This connection ultimately comes through a continual offering of information from one to another. As law professor Lawrence Lessigdeclared, “The value of the Internet came from no single institution or company, but from the collective innovations of millions of contributors” (Rheingold, 2002, p. 54). Eric S. Raymond (1999) examined a similar concept in The Cathedral and the Bazaar, on in his reflections on Linux.
In the classroom, from secondary schooling through higher learning, teachers often assemble students together to work on a group project. Some students like this setup because it affords them a chance to socialize with their peers, including getting acquainted with someone that they may not know well. Still, some other students recognize that the group atmosphere is a prime opportunity to get to know something that their classmates may have more insight, knowledge, or ideas on. Raymond (1999) pointed out that the open-source aspect of Linus Torvald’s Linux software “…was not technical by sociological” in nature. In other words, when working on any group project, such as software technology development, the exposure to the human side of the project or research is a vital component. During the exchange of information a level of trust grows within the group or from one individual to the other, along with a desire to complete the task as thoroughly as possible. Richard Stallman also professed the philosophy of group effort and coined the moniker “copyleft” to signify that it is best when everyone is free to contribute to the progress of technology. In this case, Stallman’s initial open-source GNU’S Not Unix software (Rheingold, 2002).
So what does all of this mean to the portion of society that is not participating directly to the open-source software development, yet is active in the by-product (e.g., email, e-commerce, etc.)? Nonetheless, an active user of the by-product has an influence on the open-source. The online user’s behavior confirms the acceptance or the rejection of a particular resulting feature (e.g., webinars) of the open-source, and therefore directs the next phase of the development for the open-source creators. I agree with Rheingold that a good reputation of the open-source process and the product is chief. Open-source technology is like a democracy, where one freely shares his or her ideas in the hope to benefit everyone in the end. As a result, the general technology user can have some assurance that the open-source model has a checks and balances in play. No one person has the authority to assume full control of the operation. However, glitches in open-source sharing and other give-and-take systems can arise. For instance, an issue that concerns Lessig is how cable companies (i.e., Comcast) can potentially manipulate the open-source system by prohibiting online collaborative efforts, thus impeding future progress of this system (Rheingold, 2002).
References
Raymond, E. S. (1999). The cathedral and the bazaar (pp. 21-63). In The cathedral and the bazaar. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.
Rheingold, H. (2002). Smart mobs: The next social revolution (pp. 1-132). Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.
