Generativity: Our Value of Innovations vs. Our Neglect of Security Issues

What I have come to understand most about generativity is two things:

1: you want to get the most bang out of your buck i.e. make the most of whatever it is you are using

2: you want that buck to be as simple as possible to add on to its uses i.e. have a basic enough system so that there is room for improvement, advancements, innovations, etc…

In Chapter 4 of Zittrain’s Book (http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/13) he highlights 5 major factors for something to be qualified as generative:

1.     Leverage

2.     Adaptability

3.     Ease of Mastery

4.     Accessibility

5.     Transferability

Let’s begin with LEVERAGE.  Zittrain explains that this is what “makes a difficult job easier.”  In terms of generativity this means, the more that a system can do, the more likely it is that it will produce some sort of change.

Next on the list is ADAPTABILITY.  This refers to “how easily the system can be built on or modified to broaden its range of users.”  In other words, how basic the system is to allow for more change or possible innovations or changes in the future.  An example of something that is not that adaptable is TiVo.  While this is great for leverage, but it has a specific use that cannot be modified to do something else.  Zittrain explains that a technology that allows for hundreds or different or additional uses, that transcend the original purpose the creator had for it, will be more generative. 

For something to be generative, users have to understand what they are doing and acquire those skills fluently which is where EASE OF MASTERY comes in.  This reflects “how easy it is for broad audiences to understand how to adopt and adapt” something.  Zittrain gives the example of “paper” and that a mere child can understand multiple uses of it from drawing on it to making it into a paper airplane as it has an ease of mastery, however flying an actual plane is a much more difficult feat.  When it comes to technology, in order to modify a system it can take a lot of training and education, but to utilize or operate a technology.  For example, it is easy to understand how to use a keyboard, but to understand how to modify its inner workings would not be as easily masterful as how to operate it.

You cannot use something successfully if you do not have access to it hence, something will further proves its generativity if it has ACCESSIBILITY as “the easier it is to obtain access to a technology, along with the tools and information necessary to achieve mastery of it” the more generative it will be.  Zittrain uses the example of the car and that while it may be easy to master driving the car, that doesn’t mean that won’t come with barriers such as cost.  I may be able to drive the car perfectly, but cars are expensive so if I cannot afford the car, I cannot access it, and therefore I cannot master it, putting a wrench in the generativity of it.  With regards to PC’s you can take a similar approach.  A general PC is highly accessible as it comes in a wide array of prices and varieties, however a specialized PC tends to be more money and has a more specialized function that cannot always have things added onto it. 

Finally we come to the last principle tool of generativity which is TRANSFERABILITY.  This idea indicates “how easily changes in the technology can be conveyed to others.”  In other words, will the change made by a high tech administrator, transfer into a meaning that I can understand?  The PC and the internet both possess this.  For example, a program can be written in one place and then shared with millions of other people/users and then replicated by them in mere moments.  This new software created by a skilled user can be easily translated to that of a “not so skilled” user.  In other words, if you are smart, extremely knowledgeable in creating new software and high tech gadgets, that’s great but not if other people don’t have your knowledge cannot use it as well; then what’s the point?

When I think of generativity I think of the constitution of the United States.  Yes there are numerous rights given to the American people, some more intricate than others, however there are also amendments to these rules.  Basically, the forefathers wrote out a document that gave enough of the rights they thought were important, but with room, and the ability, to be interpreted differently in the future by others and therefore changed, added onto, or amended.  The internet needed to have generativity because there needed to be recognition that while this was a major advance there needed to be room for improvement in the future for others to make changes to it with even more innovations

In chapter 6 (http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/16) it is shown how this generativity was put to good use with the sharing of content on the web especially in the case of a free encyclopedia on the internet called Wikipedia.  Today we all are quick to “google” whatever we don’t know so instead of sitting around for hours thinking “Oh damn what was the name of that actor?” I can simply place a few keywords into the search engine and find it.  Wikipedia was set up as a free encyclopedia which has large amounts of information however when it began it had some key attributes such as: keeping content in a neutral point of view, eliminate anything that would infringe on copyright.  However the issue was and still is today in many cases, that Wikipedia is open to all, whether registered or not, to be edited with information.  Therefore it is a system of trust in which you have to trust that the information you are getting is accurate as there are no “gatekeepers” of the site to oversee that the information is correct.  The one good thing, or bad thing depending on how you look at it, is that changes were made instantaneously.  This is bad in the sense that if someone were to go to a Wikipedia page and put a piece of ridiculous information there that was obviously inaccurate or silly, while it would show up right away, when another person sees this they could immediately fix it and the change would show up quickly.  This embodied principles of procrastination, “trust your neighbor,” and Postel’s Law that states that you should, “Be conservative in what you do’ be liberal in what you accept from others.”  There are some restrictions, or restrictive like qualities, to Wikipedia, especially in the case of biographies of people in which Zittrain asserts that, “biographies of living persons are especially sensitive, and they are encouraged to highlight unsourced or potentially libelous statements for quick review by other Wikipedians.  Jimbo and a handful of other Wikipedia officials reserve the right not only to have an article edited—something anyone can do—but to change its edit history so the fact that it ever said a particular thing about someone will no longer be known to the general public…”  Personally, I have always been a fan of Wikipedia and I know sometimes there are inaccuracies but there are inaccuracies everywhere you go in life especially on the web.  While I know it has its weak points I like the fact that there is a place on the net that I can go to and get a combination of information and then even see a debate regarding the information in the comments section.  Not much in life is certain, and new things are contradicting old ideas all the time, so why not let that occur in an online encyclopedia? 

Benkler shows some of the effects of this generative and information sharing era.  He questions that if everything else in our lives are commercial and non-volunteer how could the information industry be so?  He argues that we are willing to deal with some inaccuracies, such as some that might come from Wikipedia, in exchange for getting more people involved in producing and sharing the information in a non-rival industry as, “more innovation and creativity, which will outweigh the inefficiency at any given moment caused by selling the information at above its marginal cost.” (Benkler 06 Wealth of Networks.pdf ) I find this to be true, at least for me.  I often do not think about the risks involved in being on the internet and the security, and am more so focused on the information I am seeking to get.  The security issue is in the back of my head with my attitude being "Eh, if something happens it happens and I'll deal with it then..."  Probably not the best attitude to have, but if I am being honest it is the one I tend to have when surfing the net.  I think that's why sites such as Wikipedia have come to be so popular.  We don't often think of the possible ramifications of posting something incorrect on Wikipedia because frankly the reprimands aren't that harsh unless of course in the case of one's biography and libelous statements.  Yet because it is so easily edited, it is easy to take a libelous statement down from the site instantaneously.  I think this is the attitude many take to the internet.  Things on the internet seem to all of us as instantaneous and I think we all think that something can simply be taken down if people don't like it.

THE LONG TAIL! (http://www.longtail.com/the_long_tail/about.html)

In regards tot he Long Tail, it's this idea that the economy is going away from just the few big hits we have and rather forcusing more on teh nicehes within the tail.  As Anderson points out with his example of the author, Jon Krakauer, he wrote a "not so successful" book and then later on wrote a best seller.  This best seller caused people to look into more of his work, and the flop that was his first book, became a big deal after the huge sales of his second book, Into Thin Air.   He writes:

Jon Krakauer wrote Into Thin Air, another book about a mountain-climbing tragedy, which became a  publishing sensation. Suddenly Touching the Void started to sell again. Random House rushed out a new edition to keep up with demand. Booksellers began to promote it next to their Into Thin Air displays, and sales rose further. A revised paperback edition, which came out in January, spent 14 week on the New York Times bestseller list. That same month, IFC Films released a docudrama of the story to critical acclaim. Now Touching the Void outsells Into Thin Air more than two to one.

Basically, people may begin focusing on the mainstream works such as Into Thing Air, however after critical acclaim of that, people focus on that author's other works causing their sales to rise and even to surpass the original mainstream bestseller.

In the end it comes down to the fact that the internet is generative and that people value more so, a realm in which they can roam freely and find or post information than they value security.  In the information age it is about getting information and getting it fast, even if we have to deal with some inaccuracies along the way.