The limits of peer production: Some reminders from Max Weber for the network society

Abstract

In the last few years, a powerful consensus has emerged among scholars of digitally enabled peer production. In this view, digital technologies and social production processes are driving a dramatic democratization of culture and society. Moreover, leading scholars now suggest that these new, hyper-mediated modes of living and working are specifically challenging the hierarchical structures and concentrated power of bureaucracies. This paper first maps the assumptions underlying the new consensus on peer production so as to reveal the sources of its coherence. It then revisits Max Weber’s account of bureaucracy. With Weber in mind, the paper aims to expose analytical weaknesses in the consensus view and offer a new perspective from which to study contemporary digital media.

Towards a (De)centralization-Based Typology of Peer Production

“…With our typology, we have also wished to contribute to the untangling of these complex issues within a field of research and practice that is increasingly rich and articulated. Just as it holds opportunities-brought to the fore by a predominantly participatory and emancipatory discourse-peer production also has its limits, as Kreiss et al (2011) remind us. Tools such as this typology may help to underline the extent to which opportunities and limits are embedded in a variety of layers and levels of the peer-production process-and how the very concepts of "opportunity" and "limit" in peer production are relative, depending on the actors and the objectives involved in the process.…”

“…Along these lines, Kreiss, Finn and Turner (2011) note that, in peer production, changes in ubiquity and power relations at the level of processes do not necessarily imply a revolution in the attribution of benefits related to outputs. Kostakis (2013), building on previous work on the "crisis of value", points out the sustainability problem when assessing value in peer production: he remarks that more and more of commons-based peer producers' time goes into producing use value (utility as valuable to someone), but there is no substantial return of income to them: a volunteer pool can be sustainable collectively through the continuous renewal of its members, but membership cannot be exclusively composed of volunteer individuals on a permanent basis.…”

Property Outlaws in Cyberspace and Meatspace? Examining the Relationship between Online Peer Production and Support for Private Property Violations

“…For example, a remixed Taylor Swift video on YouTube may be the product of a distributed collaborative effort, but the "input" (the original video) is proprietary, the platform (YouTube) is proprietary, and the terms of service may give the platform owner (Google) what amounts to full property rights in the form of a world-wide license. In short, not all peer production projects are "common-based", and even the classic examples of nonproprietary peer production have developed complex relationships with the commodity system, as happens when firms develop products and services around open-source software (Kreiss, Finn, and Turner 2011).…”

Commons/Commodity: Peer Production Caught in the Web of the Commercial Market

“…The fluid and apparently symbiotic relationship between commons and commodity production is manifest also in digital games where the games industry benefits from the hackers' technological innovations by incorporating hackers' modifications to games into its new releases of games (S. Coleman & Dyer-Witheford, 2007). Some argue that an emphasis on the participatory nature of information production is welcomed by commercial media companies that seek the means to integrate consumers into their production processes (Berry, 2008;Fuchs, 2009;Kreiss, Finn, & Turner, 2011;Terranova, 2000;van Dijck & Nieborg, 2009).…”