MusicBrainz and Its Peers: Comparing Cultural Commons

From AcaWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Citation: Brian W. Carver (2011/12/11) MusicBrainz and Its Peers: Comparing Cultural Commons.
Internet Archive Scholar (search for fulltext): MusicBrainz and Its Peers: Comparing Cultural Commons
Download: http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/ECM PRO 069672.pdf
Tagged: draft (RSS), musicbrainz (RSS)

Summary

Paper states it is a DRAFT.

Followup to Making Metadata: The Case of MusicBrainz:

"builds on her research by comparing and contrasting her findings regarding MusicBrainz with the findings of scholars that have studied open source and free software projects and other instances of online peer-production such as Wikipedia. I begin the process of identifying what makes some of these efforts succeed and what may be missing when other similar efforts fail, working towards a theory of successful online peer-produced information commons."

...

"some have been tempted to conclude that there is simply something unique about the development of software and encyclopedias that makes these online collaborative efforts succeed and others fail. To counter such a hypothesis, additional examples of successful internet-based collaboratively-built information commons are essential. MusicBrainz is such an example."

Is MusicBrainz a success? It seems to be meeting its self-described aims. Paper notes it is likely to be revised to adapt some indicators in Information Systems Success in Free and Open Source Software Development: Theory and Measures.

Indicators MusicBrainz is sustainable across "technical, financial, personnel, and legal" factors. Number of active editors peaked in 2006, stable since 2008. MusicBrainz is also much used in terms of website visitors and application integrations.

Comparisons

  • Modularity: In some ways MusicBrainz is more modular than Wikipedia in that single fields can be edited, but also vastly more strucutred/not free form. In theory contributors could make useful contributions with less guidance.
  • Plausible promise/feasible improvement: users can see MusicBrainz is already useful, and their very small contribution will further improve it.
  • Condition Indicators, the Predictability of Availability, and User Autonomy: Like FLOSS source code and Wikipedia edits, everything about MusicBrainz is open for inspection, no permission barrier to contribute.
  • Resource Salience: People rely on FLOSS for livelihood, Wikipedia extremely convenient but few rely on so; MusicBrainz used for organizing music collections and providing supplementary music information (eg to BBC and Last.fm); enough to expect repeat users to sustain MusicBrainz.
  • Governance: Mostly consensus-based.
  • Conflict-resolution mechanisms: Paper notes this is to be added.
  • Gender: Like Wikipedia and FLOSS, MusicBrainz contributors overwhelmingly male.
  • Age: MusicBrainz contributors slightly older than Wikipedia and FLOSS contributors. but majority of all is <35 years old.
  • Motivations: Similar as reported in FLOSS and Wikipedia: commons, community, enjoyment, obsessiveness

Towards a Theory of Successful Online Peer-Produced Information Commons, common features:

  • "information commons with plausible promise and modular tasks"
  • "autonomous access to the resource and can predictably discern its current condition and availability"
  • "meets a repeated need of the individual"
  • "individuals can participate in modifying the community's operational rules"
  • "conflict-resolution mechanisms are available"
  • "opportunity to join a community engaged in doing good and having fun"

Theoretical and Practical Relevance

Also see Almost Wikipedia: What Eight Collaborative Encyclopedia Projects Reveal About Mechanisms of Collective for another set of dimensions, in particular product and process innovation, for successful (and unsuccessful) commons-based info production; blog discussion.