Limits of peer production

Design Lounge Communication and collaboration
1

I came across this interesting and easy to read paper on “limits of self organization”. It makes the following argument:

Web based per production is based on two assumptions, which the author calls “Laws of Quality”:

  • “Linus’s Law”, in general, “the more people review a product, the better its quality”
  • Evolution: "People just produce whatever they want; the good stuff spreads, and the bad gets ignored” (Graham, 2005).

However, the author argues that for collaborations aside of software for developers, the assumptions might lead to decreased quality. One particular problem is creating consistency across the units (Articles, Music Albums, Books…) which are prescribed by the project and platform.

The article also suggests that peer production projects “should reflect on the extent to which, explicitly or implicitly, they rely on the laws of quality [see above]. If they don’t, they should ask themselves what they do rely on.”

This is something I wondered about: Do we have any explicit assumptions why open source collaboration is good for design (If we assume so)?

relates to: difficulties of design in OS and Cathedral, Bazaar and Design

2

Hmm I suppose I have assumptions that there are designers out there with innate, deep understanding and knowledge of a particular scenario/user/environment etc. that I could also gain through significant effort to learn but that if there are designers out there that know a ‘space’ already I value their insight if it is communicable.

Personal reflection: I don’t design well in isolation. I miss details, I explore insularly. If you have a team then this is facilitated by a team, if you don’t open source collaboration could facilitate this.

I’m sure I have other thoughts too…

Also this "People just produce whatever they want; the good stuff spreads, and the bad gets ignored”
I don’t think is ‘true’ as well…good and bad are often nuanced and hard to qualify in a generalised way.

3

Also this "People just produce whatever they want; the good stuff spreads, and the bad gets ignored”
I don’t think is ‘true’ as well…good and bad are often nuanced and hard to qualify in a generalised way.

I agree. I think the idea of labeling any design “good” or “bad” is a case of black-or-white fallacy.
Bad designs are pretty common on popular applications. (And I have seen cases of good designs being ignored).

Evolution: "People just produce whatever they want; the good stuff spreads, and the bad gets ignored” (Graham, 2005).

I would like to think, people just produce whatever they want; and what is more useful is more likely to spread.

4

The author does not claim this to be true, rather they suggest this to be an assumption of many peer production projects: People will try many different things, the better ones will be the ones that stay.

If you have a team then this is facilitated by a team, if you don’t open source collaboration could facilitate this.

So open source design as a kind of team/collaboration which can be joined?

5

The author does not claim this to be true, rather they suggest this to be an assumption of many peer production projects: People will try many different things, the better ones will be the ones that stay.

That’s good that the author doesn’t claim this to be true :slight_smile: just observed it. I do think the design community/ies are as susceptible as any community to ‘group think’ and not always being insightful/critical of their own approaches.

So open source design as a kind of team/collaboration which can be joined?

I’ve had some folks in Kenya describe this as how they view it and as a solo designer ‘employed’ in an OSS project I would agree. It gets lonely.