Dynamics of Peer Production
I've become fascinated over the past few months with what Yochai Benkler calls Commons Based Peer Production (CBPP) and which he proposes as a new means of production that complements both the market and the firm. The key idea behind these websites is that they are designed in such a way as to facilitate self-organizing communities that create (and use) information goods in an intellectual commons.
Prominent examples of such CBPP websites are the wikiwikiweb, wikipedia, slashdot, kuro5hin, clickworkers, sourceforge, citeseer, blogspot, flickr, groklaw, and many more. These sites all allow any netizen to join the community and to add content to the common information repository.
What is interesting about these sites is that they also have engineered in mechanisms that allow the community to cooperate in enhancing the quality of the information. Thus, not only does the community create content, but it passes judgement on the content, and it creates a document history which records the complete record of all changes to the information. In some cases, the meta-level discussions about the content are also fully recorded( e.g. in mailing list archives at sourceforge or in the discussion pages of wikipedia).
The software behind these sites is, in many cases, being released into the intellectual commons and is being used to create new sites. For example, the software used to build the wikipedia is mediawiki. It is being used to build other CBPP sites such as the sourcewatch site for exposing bias and deception in news stories, as well as hundreds of other sites. Likewise, the sourceforge infrastructure is available commercially for supporting open source type models within a firm or educational institution. Blogging software is available for download and modification at several sites including for example blojsom.
I have a suspicion that there are design principles that can be applied to CBPP sites that can explain why some sites are successul while others flounder. The best way to induce these principles is probably to embark on an indepth study of the most successful such endeavors.
CBPP also challenges the foundational notions of intellectual authority that we have developed in our culture. For example, the wikipedia provides an example of an information source that is by design completely untrustworthy at any particular moment, because anyone could insert anything into any article at any time!
For example, after only five years the wikipedia website offers a wide range of articles in many languages, and many of the articles are comparable to the quality in commercial encyclopedias, except for the intervals after incorrect information has been introduced into the article and before someone has corrected it! As an experienced user of wikipedia, you are simultaneously skeptical of the particulars of the content of any article, and yet fairly confident that much of what you see in an article will be corroborated by other sources. The nature of this information source encourages critical thinking about information sources.
My friend and colleague, Ken Anderson, 
