First recommendations for Open e-culture
photo by Sebsatiaan ter Burg
Several recommendations that came up during the Open e-culture round table discussion are presented in this third and last blog on this particular topic. Mind that this is just the start of a discussion that will be continued online and during the State of Social Media Summit (28th-29th of October). Your comments are most welcome!
- Generally, producers, consumers and policymakers must be informed about the opportunities and constraints, so they can make a deliberate choice between an ‘open’ or ‘closed’ approach.
- Open initiatives should become visible for the general public. Success stories should be presented in an attractive way! For example by a Remix Manifesto-like documentary or regular program. Or, by integrating the use of open source software or open content materials in your activities (as a teacher, as an artist etc.).
- Public funded institutions should be forced to take a stance in the discussion. Do they disclose their material and knowledge according to open principles?
- Challenge big organizations and institutions by means of specific online initiatives and lawsuits that might result from it (such as web 2.0 suicide machine). This results in jurisprudence, and transparent communication on these lawsuits creates public consciousness.
- Start with educating on issues of information and free culture at primary and secondary schools.
- Create online tools for instant reflection by consumers. By means of such a tool they are forced to actually think about what they do, want to do, need or don’t need.
- Define what sustainability means with regard to Open initiatives. What are, for example, the consequences for particular business-models? How to measure value? As such the movement might become (even) more convincing.
- Find a form of representation to talk with government, media or corporate sector.
- Share successes within the community of producers and entrepreneurs.
- Change the legal system and policy to support openness. For example, by advocating the reform of copyright laws or advocate openness based on acts of freedom of expression.
October 7th, 2010 at 16:56
- I would state that public funded institutions don’t have to make a choice in openness. For me, publicly funded means you open your data to the public. Either actively (put it on your site) or passively (when asked for it).
Perhaps the WOB law could be ‘extended’ to state that publicly funded institutions are required to release any source-code they create or let companies create for them.
As the cultural scene is asked more and more to create their own moneyflow (cultuurprofijt), this will get complicated: which part of the hybrid institution paid for what? (I’m more of a fan of cultuur effectiviteit. But that’s another story).
- Share success stories, but also share failures.
- I totally agree that the e-culture sector could do with more active and fun institutions like Mediamatic and Worm/Moddr.