[iDC] Don Tapscott's Wikinomics: A Dismal Netology?
pat kane
playethical at gmail.com
Wed Aug 29 18:36:36 UTC 2007
Hi Tiziana and Michel
Hoping I can contribute a few broken thoughts to this debate, which
the reanimated magi of the Scottish Enlightenment would doubtless
shape much better than I can...
My only experience of non-establishment money systems are a few LETS
schemes in Scotland - which work well in hard-bitten social
situations, where community solidarity can be reanimated around these
'socially'-fuelled systems of allocation of resources, talents and
people. I also remember that the local money systems that emerged in
Argentina did so in the wake of extreme economic crisis. I suppose
the general point I'm making is that it has taken a pretty large
capitalist meltdown, or an sustained experience at its sharp end, for
alternative money systems to seem credible. Our acute and urgent
ecological awareness of natural finitude may be able to draw a very
thick line around the endless expansions of capitalism - and I'm then
wondering whether the state legislators who still lay down the laws
for capitalism's operations will realise that local money systems, or
at least the recognition of the social dimension of currency and
value-markers, might have a role to play in social order.
Believe it or not, I was invited to No.10 Downing Street recently, as
an associate of the think-tank Demos, where the current Prime
Minister Gordon Brown was celebrating the rise of
www.horsesmouth.co.uk - a 'mentoring' website which aims to match up
'underemployed' retirees and civically-minded elders, with young
freelancers and strivers who are looking for practical life and
career advice. I've no brief for Brown, whose silence or complicity
about Iraq, and recommissioning of Trident, makes him seem to me like
political 'business as usual'. But nevertheless, this was the head of
the British state enthusiastically associating himself with a social
network platform that was explictly trying to capture that
Lazzatarian "flow of pure affect bifurcating into subpersonal flows
of beliefs, desires, judgments and feelings which flow between
individual minds, and which individual minds repeat or innovate",
and canalise that towards a communitarian politics. Again, this is
either classic Di Lampedusa strategy, or it's the state recognising
that it needs to recognise the 'transcendental' force of peer-to-peer
collaboration.
Again, to pick up another point of Michel's, trust-based resource
management pops up in the most interesting places, at least in the
relatively material process of newspaper production - the Guardian
now explicitly proclaims that its trust status is a guarantor of its
editorial quality, freedom, and innovativeness. So the attractiveness
of an ideal of social affect as the basis for running an enterprise,
service or organisation - wikinomics, in Tapscott's sense - is
already out there. I'm always wondering - and perhaps Keith Hart can
help here - whether 'top down' is always oblivious to 'bottom up', or
whether there might some imaginable state policy reform that could
fecundly generate a whole range of collaborative enterprises. I'm
thinking of the discussion around the PSP (public service provider)
going on in Ofcom in the UK, where websites and gamemakers can bid
for public money on the basis of providing a 'public service'; or the
Swedish state subsidy for local newspapers, to protect press diversity.
If these policies are even imaginable, let alone extant, what other
ideas can be smuggled into state action? (Seeing, as a caution of
course, how disappointingly Lessig's notions of creative commons
panned out in the BBC, where a fully accessible 'creative archive'
ended up as a tighly managed 7-day catch up 'BBC Player', due to the
state not getting involved in clearing up the legal proprietorial
thickets...). My problems is, I'm also a Scottish state reformer,
with a state to reform, and seeking ideas desperately...
(www.scottishfutures.net)
best, pk
Pat Kane
+44 (0)7718 588497
http://www.theplayethic.com
http://theplayethic.typepad.com
http://www.newintegrity.org
http://www.scottishfutures.net
http://www.patkane.com
All mail to: patkane at theplayethic.com
On 29 Aug 2007, at 17:01, tiziana wrote:
> dear michel and pat
>
> always very interesting to drop in on the idc list to read your posts.
>
> I think this all idea of a different type of economy based on a
> peer-to-peer model is very exciting.
>
> My problem also derives from my experience as somebody who like
> most of
> us is involved in some kind of peer-to-peer collaboration. A
> peer-to-peer collaboration by nature is not based on command or on
> impersonal mechanisms such as the perfect market model, but is
> always a
> social relation. To build such a kind of economy would be to build a
> social economy. Of course such a social economy already exists and
> functions within the current financial circuits (after all isn't
> interest determined by what some people believe is the right interest,
> even as those people are the bureacrats of a central bank? Even more
> obvious with actual traders etc). What we want then is a new
> economy, a
> theory and a practice, a social economy which is explicitly
> conceived in
> different terms and with values other than profit.
> I think the Internet is allowing us to see and experiment with such
> social economy so that we can start assessing the social values
> that it
> destroys (intellectual property, authorship) and the ones it re-
> creates
> (the commons etc).
> As I see it, this would be an economy which is fully social, which is
> infused with social values and creates them. .
>
> At this point in time such social economy functions overall within a
> neoliberal governmentality. I have been convinced by Foucault and
> Agamben's argument that an economy is always a mode of government,
> Agamben's archaeology of the economy even brings it back to the
> medieval
> oikonomia which defined the ways in which God immanently governed the
> world... Foucault claims that the economy as the mode of government of
> neoliberals grasps all social conduct as economic conduct, and
> that is
> v. interesting as well.
>
> Bu if social relations need to be foregrounded so as to increase the
> powers of such new social economy, do we understand what social
> relations are made of? As usual here, I have to refer to Maurizio
> Lazzarato's work where he performs an an interesting trick. If I have
> got it right, and I am still trying to figure it out, he is arguing
> that
> a social relation (which replaces work as economic engine and
> source of
> productivity) involves a process of capture of a kind of flow of pure
> affect bifurcating into subpersonal flows of beliefs, desires,
> judgments
> and feelings which flow between individual minds, and which
> individual
> minds repeat or innovate (they/we are like complicated relays in this
> process). Obviously his conception of the mind (or 'brain') is not
> cognitivist, it is not a symbol-manipulating system, although going
> into
> details is a bit difficult here. I think understanding this is very
> important if we are to figure out how forms of peer-to-peer economy
> might spread and be innovated upon beyond the wikipedia model.
>
> For example I could not help notice the reference in some
> postings to
> the annoyance that comes out of dealing with people's 'petty concerns'
> (firmly entrenched beliefs and petty hates?) about some particular
> entries on wikipedia. How do you compose widely different beliefs,
> feelings (attractions/revulsions), judgments and opinions, which are
> themselves in a state of affective variation or flux? I think this is
> something that the peer-to-peer production model based on open source
> does not address directly because it tends to make it into a kind of
> automatic, procedural (protocolled?) process. I think that you really
> want to expand a peer-to-peer money system, the implementation of a
> protocol for something that elicits such strong, how shall we call
> them,
> interests? feelings? attachments? desires? beliefs? such as money
> would
> be a different thing than the production of an Internet protocol or
> programme. But I might be simplifying your perspective.
>
> best
>
> tiziana terranova
>
>
>
> Michel Bauwens wrote:
>
>> Hi Pat,
>>
>> I'd like to offer some added perspectives on social change, based on
>> your input.
>>
>> I think that first of all we have a very simple 'logical' ( but
>> actually physical problem): can a system of infinite growth exist
>> within a finite physical environment. My answer would be no, and
>> therefore, capitalism as an infinite growth system is doomed
>> eventually.
>>
>> The second question is: what are the drivers of such infinite growth?
>> I have been convinced by the monetary reformers, that one of the key
>> issue is the protocol of the monetary system, in other words the
>> interest-based system. Interest cannot function in a static economy,
>> it requires growth. In a static economy, you can only pay back the
>> interest (which is not created by the banks) by taking it from
>> someone
>> else, while in a growth system, the pain is less as you can get it
>> from the growing pie. But what if the pie can no longer grow? One of
>> the key issues today is therefore to develop monetary systems with
>> different protocols, and I think the best way to do this is by
>> 'distributing' the money creation, and to have direct social
>> production of money.l
>>
>> I also agree with you that at moments of deep systemic crisis, we
>> must
>> expect rather radical change. The shifts between the roman imperial
>> slavery system and the feudal serf system were pretty radical, a
>> breach of the fundamental logic of society, and so was the shift from
>> feudalism to capitalism.
>>
>> Non-reciprocal peer production would seem to be the emerging logic of
>> immaterial production, since we see it emerging with such force, and
>> adapting open/free, participatory, and commons-oriented strategies
>> are
>> competitive advantages for for-profit institutions and state forces
>> alike (apart from the natural tendency of communinities to adopt it).
>> In the physical world, the realm of scarcity, non-reciprocity cannot
>> work, so what I expect are peer-informed modes of production, such as
>> fair trade (markets subjected to peer arbitrage), social
>> entrepreneurship (abandoning money as an end, just keeping it as a
>> means), trust-based resource management (see Peter Barnes). Such a
>> situation would be consisting with the historical record of previous
>> modes which always combined pluralism but always under the domination
>> of one core logic (respectively the gift economy, the tributary logic
>> and the exchange logic).
>>
>> One key question is how antagonistic the change will/must be. It does
>> not seem that the end of the roman empire and its transformation was
>> antagonist in the sense of two classes fighting each other, and many
>> feudal to capitalist transitions did not take the form of bourgeois
>> revolutions. More fundamental was that in both systems, the new
>> social
>> relations were slowly being built up, and then, through some
>> mechanism, reached a tipping point.
>>
>> On 8/23/07, *pat kane* <scottishfutures at googlemail.com
>> <mailto:scottishfutures at googlemail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Michel
>>
>>
>> I thought Benkler regarded peer-to-peer as more than just an
>> appendage to market-system and state-system allocations of
>> resources, but as at least a vigorous corrective, and at best a
>> viable alternative to them - indeed reconnecting resource
>> allocation and generation to democracy and citizenship in a way
>> that the previous two domains have insufficiently done. My
>> problem
>> with Tapscott is that his perspective on mass collaboration is so
>> relentlessly (and literally) in-corporating - which is why I
>> quoted D
>> iLampedusa. Actually by way of Immanuel Wallerstein in this
>> brilliant essay - http://www.binghamton.edu/fbc/iw-vien2.htm
>> <http://www.binghamton.edu/fbc/iw-vien2.htm> - from which the key
>> quote is this:
>>
>> The basic reason for concessions by persons of privilege to
>> demands for democratization is to defuse the anger, to
>> incorporate
>> the rebellious, but always in order to save the basic
>> framework of
>> the system. This strategy incarnates the di Lampedusa principle
>> that "everything must change in order that nothing change."
>>
>> The di Lampedusa principle is a very efficacious one, up to a
>> tipping point. Demands for further democratization, for further
>> redistribution of the political, economic, and social pie, far
>> from having exhausted themselves, are endless, even if only in
>> increments. And the democratization of the past 200 years,
>> even if
>> it has benefited only my hypothetical 19% of the world
>> population,
>> has been costly to the 1%, and has consumed a noticeable portion
>> of the pie. If the 19% were to become 29%, not to speak of their
>> becoming 89%, there would be nothing left for the privileged. To
>> be quite concrete, one could no longer have the ceaseless
>> accumulation of capital, which is after all the raison d'être of
>> the capitalist world-economy. So either a halt must be called to
>> the democratization process, and this is politically
>> difficult, or
>> one has to move to some other kind of system in order to maintain
>> the hierarchical, inegalitarian realities.
>>
>> It is towards this kind of transformation that I believe we are
>> heading today. I shall not repeat here my detailed analysis of
>> all
>> the factors that have led to what I think of as the structural
>> crisis of the capitalist world-system. Democratization as a
>> process is only one of the factors that have brought the
>> system to
>> its current chaotic state, and immanent bifurcation. ^(7)
>> <http://www.binghamton.edu/fbc/iw-vien2.htm#N_7_> What I see,
>> as a
>> result, is an intense political struggle over the next 25-50
>> years
>> about the successor structure to a capitalist world-economy.
>> In my
>> view this is a struggle between those who want it to be a
>> basically democratic system and those who do not want that. I
>> therefore somewhat unhappy about the suggestion of the organizers
>> that democracy may be "an essentially unfinishable project." Such
>> a formulation evokes the image of the tragic condition of
>> humanity, its imperfections, its eternal improvability. And of
>> course, who can argue with such an imagery? But the formulation
>> leaves out of account the possibility that there are moments of
>> historic choice that can make an enormous difference. Eras of
>> transition from one historical social system to another are just
>> such moments of historic choice. ^(8)
>> <http://www.binghamton.edu/fbc/iw-vien2.htm#N_8_>
>>
>> Is peer-to-peer part of this struggle towards a 'successor
>> structure'? Or not? The panic of Tapscott in the face of mass
>> collaboration makes me think it must be.
>>
>> PK
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Pat Kane
>> +44 (0)7718 588497
>> http://www.theplayethic.com
>> http://theplayethic.typepad.com
>> http://www.newintegrity.org
>> http://www.scottishfutures.net
>> http://www.patkane.com <http://www.patkane.com>
>>
>> All mail to: patkane at theplayethic.com
>> <mailto:patkane at theplayethic.com>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 23 Aug 2007, at 08:03, Michel Bauwens wrote:
>>
>>> Just a quick reply to this one.
>>>
>>> I think that the various attempts to make sense of emerging
>>> passionate and collaborative production outside the
>>> institutional
>>> frameworks of the for-profit world, such as this one, are
>>> legitimate. But indeed, I think there is a key
>>> differentiation to
>>> be made, and that is the following:
>>>
>>> 1) between all those, and that includes both liberals such as
>>> Benkler/Tapscott, but also left commentators (does Trebor belong
>>> to this category) who believe that peer to peer is entirely
>>> immanent to the current production system, a simple appendage to
>>> the market
>>>
>>> 2) and those, such as myself, who believe it has a
>>> 'transcendent'
>>> potential as well. Taking the latter view does not mean
>>> upholding
>>> any automaticity, nor denying the immanence, but simple
>>> accepting
>>> that the immanent aspect is not sufficient, that both the
>>> system-confirming and system-transcending aspects and potential
>>> have to be held at the same time, to make a full sense of the
>>> phenomena.
>>>
>>> This being said, both communities and institutions need to take
>>> account of each other, and to undertake processes of adaptation,
>>> and this is what the Wikinomics book addresses, from the
>>> point of
>>> view of the for-profit world,
>>>
>>> Michel
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/20/07, *pat kane* < scottishfutures at googlemail.com
>>> <mailto:scottishfutures at googlemail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> *From: * pat kane <playethical at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:playethical at gmail.com>>
>>>> *Date: * 19 August 2007 21:51:29 BDT
>>>> *To: * iDC list <idc at bbs.thing.net
>>>> <mailto:idc at bbs.thing.net>>
>>>> *Subject: * *Don Tapscott's Wikinomics: A Dismal Netology?*
>>>>
>>>> Hi all
>>>>
>>>> Trebor asked me to post this - I've been reading Don
>>>> Tapscott's Wikinomics for a review for the Independent,
>>>> a UK
>>>> 'quality' tabloid. It's not up to the usual levels of
>>>> theoretical precision that abounds on iDC, and you'll all
>>>> know most of the references, but it might at least be a
>>>> thought-starter. It also has a reference - I think the
>>>> first
>>>> newspaper reference ever! - to the work of Micheal Bauwens,
>>>> our resident integral net-sage. Any (and better) responses
>>>> welcomed.
>>>>
>>>> Pk
>>>>
>>>> Pat Kane
>>>> http://www.theplayethic.com
>>>> http://theplayethic.typepad.com
>>>> http://www.newintegrity.org
>>>> http://www.scottishfutures.net
>>>> http://www.patkane.com
>>>>
>>>> All mail to: patkane at theplayethic.com
>>>> <mailto:patkane at theplayethic.com>
>>>>
>>>> *Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything*
>>>>
>>>> * *
>>>>
>>>> *By Don Tapscott and Anthony D. Williams*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Reviewed by Pat Kane
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A spectre is haunting the information age – the spectre of
>>>> communism. And if you don't believe me, listen to Bill
>>>> Gates
>>>> <http://news.com.com/2102-1041_3-5514121.html?
>>>> tag=st.util.print>.
>>>> In a 2005 interview, when asked whether the idea of
>>>> intellectual property was being challenged by the net
>>>> generation's ingrained habit of downloading, using and
>>>> sharing content for free, Gates disagreed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "I'd say that of the world's economies, there's more that
>>>> believe in intellectual property today than ever. There are
>>>> fewer communists in the world today than there were", mused
>>>> the uber-geek. "There are some new modern-day sort of
>>>> communists who want to get rid of the incentive for
>>>> musicians and moviemakers and software makers under various
>>>> guises. They don't think that those incentives should
>>>> exist."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gates' views <http://www.openoffice.org/> have since been
>>>> ridiculed widely throughout the tech community (though they
>>>> recently received some elegant support in Andrew Keen's /
>>>> The
>>>> Cult of the Amateur/
>>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Keen>). But the
>>>> tycoon's anxieties weren't baseless. In particular,
>>>> Microsoft faces a swarming battalion of services on the
>>>> internet which promise to provide everything the software
>>>> giant does in your computer – email, database, operating
>>>> system, everything – for nothing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> These services ( Open Office <http://www.openoffice.org/>,
>>>> Ubuntu <http://www.ubuntu.com/> , Firefox
>>>> <http://en.www.mozilla.com/en/firefox/> and many others)
>>>> have mostly been created, and developed, by digital
>>>> idealists committed to a vision of knowledge and culture
>>>> which – if not communist – then at least revives the old
>>>> idea of a ' commonwealth
>>>> <http://www.bostonreview.net/BR27.3/bollier.html>', a realm
>>>> of resources available as of right to free men and women,
>>>> and places it bang in the heart of the late-capitalist
>>>> West.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The flurry of brand names from web culture that we conjure
>>>> with in our daily news stories – Google, YouTube, MySpace,
>>>> Facebook, Flickr – are fuelled by the free labour, and avid
>>>> attention, of the netizens of this new commonwealth. And
>>>> the
>>>> only sustainable way these Web giants have found to make
>>>> any
>>>> money is by demonstrating to advertisers that potential
>>>> consumers are watching. So it would seem that, at least at
>>>> the networked end of things, capitalism is parasitic upon
>>>> collaboration. No wonder Bill Gates would rather try to
>>>> mitigate Aids in Africa
>>>> <http://www.gatesfoundation.org/default.htm> these days,
>>>> than deal with this Monday-morning head-splitter of a
>>>> problem.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If there's any group poised to profit from the bewilderment
>>>> of executive managers in the midst of turbulent markets and
>>>> trends, it's business consultants. And Don Tapscott and
>>>> Anthony Williams, as they say in these circles, are
>>>> certainly built to last. The extremely gimmicky title of
>>>> their book draws inspiration from one the less satisfying
>>>> aspects of this digital "mass collaboration" culture, the
>>>> wiki. (Apart from Wikipedia, have you ever used a real
>>>> wiki?
>>>> To a nineties'-era newspaper hack like myself, it sometimes
>>>> seems like as if the most fiddly aspects of page-setting
>>>> software has been perversely elevated to a new economic
>>>> paradigm).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> At times, Wikinomics reminds you of the famous quote from
>>>> the nobleman in Giuseppe De Lampudesa's The Leopard
>>>> <http://observer.guardian.co.uk/euro/story/
>>>> 0,,977706,00.html>:
>>>> "If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to
>>>> change". Meaning that if the corporate West wants to find a
>>>> way to keep making money out of the circulation of
>>>> information and culture, then the whole way they do
>>>> business
>>>> will have to turn on its head.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tapscott and Williams present themselves quite
>>>> self-consciously as the hand-holding guides of trembling
>>>> CEOs and senior managers through this scary landscape. A
>>>> land where copyright can barely be protected; where
>>>> powerful
>>>> companies have to open up their products and services to
>>>> collaboration with hackers and amateurs; where new
>>>> technologies largely propelled by irrepressible geeks can
>>>> threaten and unravel existing commercial markets.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They do their best, but most of the writers' attempts to
>>>> bolt the usual scarcity-and-control models of money-making
>>>> on to these alarmingly collective processes are remarkably
>>>> tenuous. For example, they suggest that the most active
>>>> participants in YouTube or Flickr be given star status, and
>>>> granted a small but proportionate share of the ad revenue
>>>> that their impassioned participation helps generate.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But can you imagine the resentment that would build among
>>>> such playful enthusiasts, each currently with as much right
>>>> to access and status as the other, if a lucrative star
>>>> system began to appear on these platforms? The very
>>>> altruism
>>>> and creative spirit that vitalised these networks would
>>>> quickly evaporate, and all manner of gamings and
>>>> distortions
>>>> of the system for profit would ensue. Talk about 'not
>>>> getting it'.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Many of Tapscott and Williams' other recommendations to big
>>>> business are inspired by an ideal of scientific practice –
>>>> peer-support-and review, the open sharing of knowledge –
>>>> which is as much about Enlightenment as it is about
>>>> capitalism. And let's not forget that the Web itself, the
>>>> platform that dynamised this whole situation, came out of
>>>> the purely scholarly vision of Tim Berners-Lee
>>>> <http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9910/21/
>>>> berners.lee.interview.idg/>
>>>> – a physicist who wanted to help his fellow researchers
>>>> freely exchange information.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There's a weird blindness at the heart of this book, with
>>>> its gushing celebrations of how world-wide corporate
>>>> collaboration might produce the next Boeing airliner, or a
>>>> new kitchen surface wipe. As the peer-to-peer visionary
>>>> Micheal Bauwens
>>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Bauwens> has
>>>> eloquently
>>>> written, the problem is that we regard what is truly
>>>> plentiful as scarce (information), and what is truly scarce
>>>> as plentiful (our finite natural world).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is virtually zero consciousness in Wikinomics of the
>>>> kind of limits to global corporate activity that our acute
>>>> environmental crisis must necessarily impose. Indeed, with
>>>> an award-winning cheesiness, the book opens with an
>>>> anecdote
>>>> about a goldmine – revived, of course, through wikinomical
>>>> means.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As Jeffery Sachs noted in his BBC Reith Lectures this year
>>>> <http://www.bbc.co.uk/print/radio4/reith2007/
>>>> lecture5.shtml>,
>>>> mass collaboration through informed networks will be one of
>>>> the key tools whereby we might heal the planet,
>>>> environmentally and geopolitically. But you'd hardly learn
>>>> of that grand ambition from this rather comically
>>>> opportunistic book. The spectre of consultantism hangs over
>>>> it more oppressively than anything else.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Pat Kane is the author of 'The Play Ethic' (
>>>> www.theplayethic.com <http://www.theplayethic.com/>).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed
>>> Creativity ( distributedcreativity.org
>>> <http://distributedcreativity.org>)
>>> iDC at mailman.thing.net <mailto:iDC at mailman.thing.net>
>>> https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc
>>>
>>> List Archive:
>>> http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/
>>>
>>> iDC Photo Stream:
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/
>>>
>>> RSS feed:
>>> http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc
>>> <http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc>
>>>
>>> iDC Chat on Facebook:
>>> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647
>>>
>>> Share relevant URLs on Del.icio.us <http://Del.icio.us> by
>>> adding the tag iDCref
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> The P2P Foundation researches, documents and promotes peer to
>>> peer alternatives.
>>>
>>> Wiki and Encyclopedia, at http://p2pfoundation.net; Blog, at
>>> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net; Newsletter, at
>>> http://integralvisioning.org/index.php?topic=p2p
>>>
>>> Basic essay at http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=499
>>> <http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=499>; interview at
>>> http://poynder.blogspot.com/2006/09/p2p-very-core-of-world-to-
>>> come.html
>>> <http://poynder.blogspot.com/2006/09/p2p-very-core-of-world-
>>> to-come.html>
>>> BEST VIDEO ON P2P:
>>> http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?
>>> docid=4549818267592301968&hl=en-AU
>>> <http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?
>>> docid=4549818267592301968&hl=en-AU>
>>>
>>> KEEP UP TO DATE through our Delicious tags at
>>> http://del.icio.us/mbauwens
>>>
>>> The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by
>>> http://www.ws-network.com/04_team.htm
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity
>>> (distributedcreativity.org <http://distributedcreativity.org>)
>>> iDC at mailman.thing.net <mailto:iDC at mailman.thing.net>
>>> https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc
>>>
>>> List Archive:
>>> http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/
>>>
>>> iDC Photo Stream:
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/
>>>
>>> RSS feed:
>>> http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc
>>>
>>> iDC Chat on Facebook:
>>> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647
>>>
>>> Share relevant URLs on Del.icio.us <http://Del.icio.us> by
>>> adding
>>> the tag iDCref
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity (
>> distributedcreativity.org <http://distributedcreativity.org>)
>> iDC at mailman.thing.net <mailto:iDC at mailman.thing.net>
>> https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc
>>
>> List Archive:
>> http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/
>>
>> iDC Photo Stream:
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/
>>
>> RSS feed:
>> http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc
>> <http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc>
>>
>> iDC Chat on Facebook:
>> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647
>>
>> Share relevant URLs on Del.icio.us <http://Del.icio.us> by adding
>> the tag iDCref
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> The P2P Foundation researches, documents and promotes peer to peer
>> alternatives.
>>
>> Wiki and Encyclopedia, at http://p2pfoundation.net; Blog, at
>> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net; Newsletter, at
>> http://integralvisioning.org/index.php?topic=p2p
>> <http://integralvisioning.org/index.php?topic=p2p>
>>
>> Basic essay at http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=499; interview
>> at
>> http://poynder.blogspot.com/2006/09/p2p-very-core-of-world-to-
>> come.html
>> <http://poynder.blogspot.com/2006/09/p2p-very-core-of-world-to-
>> come.html>
>> BEST VIDEO ON P2P:
>> http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?
>> docid=4549818267592301968&hl=en-AU
>> <http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?
>> docid=4549818267592301968&hl=en-AU>
>>
>> KEEP UP TO DATE through our Delicious tags at http://del.icio.us/
>> mbauwens
>>
>> The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by
>> http://www.ws-network.com/04_team.htm
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ---
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity
>> (distributedcreativity.org)
>> iDC at mailman.thing.net
>> https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc
>>
>> List Archive:
>> http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/
>>
>> iDC Photo Stream:
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/
>>
>> RSS feed:
>> http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc
>>
>> iDC Chat on Facebook:
>> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647
>>
>> Share relevant URLs on Del.icio.us by adding the tag iDCref
>>
>
>
> --
> ÐÏࡱá
>
> _______________________________________________
> iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity
> (distributedcreativity.org)
> iDC at mailman.thing.net
> https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc
>
> List Archive:
> http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/
>
> iDC Photo Stream:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/
>
> RSS feed:
> http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc
>
> iDC Chat on Facebook:
> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647
>
> Share relevant URLs on Del.icio.us by adding the tag iDCref
More information about the iDC
mailing list