Difference between revisions of "Gnomunism"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m |
(major reorganization to better fit format of other articles; some clean-up, editing -- I hope I'm interpreting it right :-)) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | [[fr:gnomunisme]] | + | ==Overview== |
| + | [[fr:gnomunisme]][[category:isms]][[category:concepts]][[Gnomunism]] is the [[ideal]] of keeping all easily-duplicated, non-personal knowledge in [[knowledge commons|common]] as a public resource. It emerges from the relatively new ease with which vast amounts of data (including video and audio) can now be stored and organized for retrieval because of the [[digital revolution]] which began in the late 20th century. | ||
| − | The Gnomunism | + | The word [[Gnomunism]] comes from ''gnose'' (Greek for "knowledge") and the ideal of ''[[communism]]'', i.e. sharing property in common. (To some extent it also evokes [[wikipedia:GNOME|GNOME]], a major component of the [[wikipedia:GNU Project|GNU Project]] which originated the first [[open-source]] text license used by the first major knowledge commons project, [[Wikipedia]].) |
| − | '' | + | '''Also called''': [[digital commons]], [[electronic commons]], [[information commons]], [[virtual commons]], [[communication commons]], [[intellectual commons]], [[Internet commons]], [[technological commons]] – all are referencing the ''new shared territory of global distributed information'', from different angles. |
| + | ===Types of Knowledge=== | ||
| + | The types of knowledge to which this applies are, in general: | ||
| + | * all intelligible ideas and data | ||
| + | * all types of understanding gained through experience or study, whether indigenous, scientific, scholarly or nonacademic. | ||
| + | * creative works, such as music and the visual and theatrical arts | ||
| − | The | + | ...in whatever form in which it is expressed or obtained that can be duplicated on a computer at a cost that is so low it is difficult to calculate. |
| + | ===Notes=== | ||
| + | The French version of this page ( http://fr.issuepedia.org/gnomunisme ) is much more developed and can be translated into this page (feel free to participate). | ||
| − | Some | + | Some text on this page comes from "[http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=11012&mode=toc Understanding Knowledge as a Commons]", Charlotte Hess and Elinor Ostrom, Nobel 2009. ''(this link shuld have a page of its own, and probably some of the stuff below can go there. --[[User:Woozle|Woozle]] 16:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC))'' |
| − | + | Would it be fair to say that [[gnomunism]] is the movement towards a more universal [[knowledge commons]]? | |
| − | |||
| − | + | For more information about these ideas, here are key words to search for on the internet: | |
| + | * [[google:"knowledge commons"]] | ||
| + | * [[google:"information commons"]] | ||
| − | + | == Charlotte Hess and Elinor Ostrom, Nobel 2009 == | |
| − | + | These extracts of [http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/chapters/0262083574intro1.pdf Understanding Knowledge as a Commons] are not directly related to Gnomunism, but are copied here as illustration : | |
| − | Knowledge | + | <blockquote> |
| + | <p>Whether labeled the "digital," "electronic," "information," "virtual," "communication," "intellectual," "Internet," or "technological" commons, all these concepts address the new shared territory of global distributed information.</p> | ||
| − | + | <p>With "subtractive" resources such as fisheries, for instance, one person's use reduces the benefits available to another. High subtractability is usually a key characteristic of common-pool resources. Most types of knowledge have, on the other hand, traditionally been relatively nonsubtractive. In fact, the more people who share useful knowledge, the greater the common good.</p> | |
| − | + | <p>Knowledge is cumulative. With ideas the cumulative effect is a public good, so long as people have access to the vast storehouse, but access and preservation were serious problems long before the advent of digital technologies. An infinite amount of knowledge is waiting to be unearthed. The discovery of future knowledge is a common good and a treasure we owe to future generations. The challenge of the pathways to discovery open.</p> | |
| − | + | <p>One person's use of the ideas, thoughts, and wisdom found in the the (physical) book itself, which would be classified as a private good.</p> | |
| − | + | <p>Corporations have supported increased patents and copyright terms, while many scientists, scholars, and practitioners take actions to ensure free access to information. Universities find themselves on both sides of the commons fence, increasing their number of patents and relying more and more on corporate funding of research, .</p> | |
| − | The | + | <p>The tragedy of the anticommons in the knowledge arena lies in the potential underuse of scarce scientific resources caused by excessive [[intellectual property]] rights and overpatenting in biomedical research.</p> |
| − | + | <p>(In some situations) participants are "trapped" in perverse incentives and cannot themselves find ways of increasing trust, developing norms of reciprocity, or crafting new rules.</p> | |
| − | The | + | <p>The narrative of enclosure is one of privatization, the haves versus the have-nots, the elite versus the masses. This is the story of (2003) "Second Enclosure Movement," featuring the enclosure of the "intangible commons of the mind," through rapidly expanding intellectual property rights. The occurrence of enclosure is an important rallying cry on the part of legal scholars, librarians, scientists, and, really, anyone who is alert to the increasing occurrence of privatization, commodification, and withdrawal of information that used to be accessible, or that will never be available in our lifetimes.</p> |
| − | ...there are | + | <p>This trend of enclosure is based on the ability of new technologies to "capture" resources that were previously unowned, unmanaged, and thus, unprotected. This is the case with outer space, with the electromagnetic spectrum, and with knowledge and information. The case of distributed digital technologies is particularly complex and problematic, as many stakeholders seek to renegotiate their interests in the new digital environment. Currently there are a vast array of enclosure threats to information and knowledge – including computer code as law ([[Larry Lessig|Lessig]] 1999) and new intellectual property legislation ([[Digital Millennium Copyright Act|DMCA]], TRIPS, the [[Copyright Term Extension Act]], the [[Patriot Act]], and so on) – that undermine free access to public, scientific, and government information.</p> |
| − | + | <p>The U.S.-type commons underscores the importance of shared spaces and shared knowledge in fostering viable democratic societies. Libraries, as Kranich (2004) has pointed out, have been the quintessential strongholds of democracy. Traditionally, libraries have been the "protected areas" of the knowledge commons and librarians are the stewards. This narrative calls forth the urgency for all information users and providers to become stewards of the global digital commons.</p> | |
| − | + | <p>...there are ever-greater restrictions on access through intellectual property legislation, overpatenting, licensing, overpricing, withdrawal...</p> | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| + | <p>Serious thinkers are equally concerned with the imposition of private control over knowledge that many argue should be in the public domain.</p> | ||
| + | </blockquote> | ||
== External links == | == External links == | ||
=== Elinor Ostrom, Nobel economic 2009 === | === Elinor Ostrom, Nobel economic 2009 === | ||