Peer production - Revision history

TiberiusB at 03:29, 11 June 2026

2026-06-11T03:29:24Z

TiberiusB at 03:28, 11 June 2026

2026-06-11T03:28:07Z

TiberiusB: /* Evolution/adaptation of peer production within the current economic system */

2026-06-10T22:05:23Z

Evolution/adaptation of peer production within the current economic system

Show changes

TiberiusB at 21:24, 10 June 2026

2026-06-10T21:24:14Z

TiberiusB at 21:23, 10 June 2026

2026-06-10T21:23:53Z

TiberiusB at 21:23, 10 June 2026

2026-06-10T21:23:07Z

TiberiusB at 21:22, 10 June 2026

2026-06-10T21:22:39Z

TiberiusB at 21:17, 10 June 2026

2026-06-10T21:17:05Z

TiberiusB: /* Evolution/adaptation of peer production within the current economic system */

2026-06-08T23:11:25Z

Evolution/adaptation of peer production within the current economic system

TiberiusB: /* Evolution/adaptation of peer production\\ within the current economic system */

2025-11-04T18:14:07Z

Evolution/adaptation of peer production\\ within the current economic system

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:29, 11 June 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Note that in this page is more general about ''peer production''. It also draws from the [https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Peer_Production P2P Foundation wiki].		Note that in this page is more general about ''peer production''. It also draws from the [https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Peer_Production P2P Foundation wiki].
−	The OVN-specific view on peer production, which has evolved from practice within [[Sensorica]] since 2011, is detailed on the [[Economic model\|OVN economic model]] page.	+	The OVN-specific view on ''peer production'', which has evolved from practice within [[Sensorica]] since 2011, is detailed on the '''[[Economic model\|OVN economic model]]''' page.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-Note that in this page we'll develop a specific notion of ''peer production'', one that emanates from practice within the [[Sensorica]] OVN, starting from 2011 to the present.
+ Note that in this page is more general about ''peer production''. It also draws from the [https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Peer_Production P2P Foundation wiki].
 On this wiki we make a distinction between [[commons-based peer production]] (CBPP), proposed by [[Yochai Benkler]] in 2001, and our own notion of ''peer production''.
-* Most importantly, Benkler didn't redefined [[value]], we did.
+* Most importantly, Benkler didn't redefined [[value]], we think it's important to do it, in order to make sense of existing p2p dynamics.
-* Benkler didn't consider [[nondominium]] as a new form of property. Benkler's model was essentially based on the [[commons]] property regime.
+* Benkler didn't consider [[nondominium]] as a new form of property proposed by [[Chris Cook]] and largely observed in p2p endeavors (ex. the Bitcoin network infrastructure). Benkler's model was essentially based on the [[commons]] property regime. The difference is significant, since the [[nondominium]] infrastructure is ''capture resistant''.
-* CBPP is mediated by centralized platforms (ex. Wikipedia), as when Benkler published his studies blockchain and other p2p infrastructures didn't exist. ''Peer production'' is mediated by infrastructure that is under the [[nondominium]] [[property]] regime. The difference is significant, since the [[nondominium]] infrastructure is ''capture resistant''.
+* CBPP, as described by Benkler, is mediated by centralized platforms (ex. Wikipedia), evidently because when he published his studies blockchain and other p2p infrastructures didn't exist. Today, ''peer production'' is supported by distributed/decentralized infrastructure, under the [[nondominium]] property regime.
-* Also, Benkler spoke about ''digital'' social production, he did not extend his CBPP theory to material production. ''Peer production'', as practiced by Sensorica, encompass all production, including material.
+* Also, Benkler spoke about ''digital'' social production, he did not extend his CBPP theory to ''material'' production. ''Peer production'', as practiced by Sensorica, encompass all production, including material.
-* Benkler presented CBPP as entirely bypassing the market. Sensorica's use of ''peer production'' includes market transactions, but it also includes other modes of [[distribution]] and [[dissemination]].
+* Benkler presented CBPP as entirely bypassing the market. Current ''peer production'' processes include market transactions (also true for Sensorica), but they also include non-market, or non transactional modes of [[distribution]] and [[dissemination]].

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:24, 10 June 2026
Line 20:		Line 20:


−	Intrinsic factors such as the ''desire for mastery, autonomy, purpose, trust'', sometimes overshadow purely financial incentives in p2p processes. In other words, [[money]] is not a determinant factor in ''peer production'', which can be seen as an escape, i.e. providing the possibility of ''peer production'' to reproduce itself outside of capitalism and socialism, building new driving forces that are not monetary in nature, and not transactional, i.e. don't depend on markets for [[distribution]] and [[dissemination]]. Moreover, ''peer production'' doesn't need the state for protection, it deploys in a trans-national space, a new frontier, beyond the power of nation-states to influence, as it has been shaped by a drive towards economic sovereignty, within a context of power struggles (more on [[Peer_to_peer\|history of p2p]].	+	Intrinsic factors such as the ''desire for mastery, autonomy, purpose, trust'', sometimes overshadow purely financial incentives in p2p processes. In other words, [[money]] is not a determinant factor in ''peer production'', which can be seen as an escape, i.e. providing the possibility of ''peer production'' to reproduce itself outside of capitalism and socialism, building new driving forces that are not monetary in nature, and not transactional, i.e. don't depend on markets for [[distribution]] and [[dissemination]]. Moreover, ''peer production'' doesn't need the state for protection, it deploys in a trans-national space, a new frontier, beyond the power of nation-states to influence, as it has been shaped by a drive towards economic sovereignty, within a context of power struggles (more on [[Peer_to_peer\|history of p2p]]).

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:23, 10 June 2026
Line 20:		Line 20:


−	Intrinsic factors such as the ''desire for mastery, autonomy, purpose, trust'', sometimes overshadow purely financial incentives in p2p processes. In other words, [[money]] is not a determinant factor in ''peer production'', which can be seen as an escape, i.e. providing the possibility of ''peer production'' to reproduce itself outside of capitalism and socialism, building new driving forces that are not monetary in nature, and not transactional, i.e. don't depend on markets for [[distribution]] and [[dissemination]]. Moreover, ''peer production'' doesn't need the state for protection, it deploys in a trans-national space, a new frontier, beyond the power of nation-states to influence, as it has been shaped by a drive towards economic sovereignty, within a context of power struggles (more on [[~~p2p~~\|history of p2p]].	+	Intrinsic factors such as the ''desire for mastery, autonomy, purpose, trust'', sometimes overshadow purely financial incentives in p2p processes. In other words, [[money]] is not a determinant factor in ''peer production'', which can be seen as an escape, i.e. providing the possibility of ''peer production'' to reproduce itself outside of capitalism and socialism, building new driving forces that are not monetary in nature, and not transactional, i.e. don't depend on markets for [[distribution]] and [[dissemination]]. Moreover, ''peer production'' doesn't need the state for protection, it deploys in a trans-national space, a new frontier, beyond the power of nation-states to influence, as it has been shaped by a drive towards economic sovereignty, within a context of power struggles (more on [[Peer_to_peer\|history of p2p]].

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:23, 10 June 2026
Line 20:		Line 20:


−	Intrinsic factors such as the ''desire for mastery, autonomy, purpose, trust'', sometimes overshadow purely financial incentives in p2p processes. In other words, [[money]] is not a determinant factor in ''peer production'', which can be seen as an escape, i.e. providing the possibility of ''peer production'' to reproduce itself outside of capitalism and socialism, building new driving forces that are not monetary in nature, and not transactional, i.e. don't depend on markets for [[distribution]] and [[dissemination]]. Moreover, ''peer production'' doesn't need the state for protection, it deploys in a trans-national space, a new frontier, beyond the power of nation-states to influence, as it has been shaped by a drive towards economic sovereignty, within a context of power struggles (more on [[p2p\|history of p2p).	+	Intrinsic factors such as the ''desire for mastery, autonomy, purpose, trust'', sometimes overshadow purely financial incentives in p2p processes. In other words, [[money]] is not a determinant factor in ''peer production'', which can be seen as an escape, i.e. providing the possibility of ''peer production'' to reproduce itself outside of capitalism and socialism, building new driving forces that are not monetary in nature, and not transactional, i.e. don't depend on markets for [[distribution]] and [[dissemination]]. Moreover, ''peer production'' doesn't need the state for protection, it deploys in a trans-national space, a new frontier, beyond the power of nation-states to influence, as it has been shaped by a drive towards economic sovereignty, within a context of power struggles (more on [[p2p\|history of p2p]].

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:22, 10 June 2026
Line 20:		Line 20:


−	Intrinsic factors such as the desire for mastery, autonomy, ~~and~~ purpose, sometimes overshadow purely financial incentives in p2p processes. In other words, [[money]] is not a determinant factor in ''peer production'', which can be seen as an escape, i.e. providing the possibility of ''peer production'' to reproduce itself outside of capitalism and socialism, building new driving forces that are not monetary in nature and ~~that do~~ not depend on markets for [[distribution]] and [[dissemination]].	+	Intrinsic factors such as the ''desire for mastery, autonomy, purpose, trust'', sometimes overshadow purely financial incentives in p2p processes. In other words, [[money]] is not a determinant factor in ''peer production'', which can be seen as an escape, i.e. providing the possibility of ''peer production'' to reproduce itself outside of capitalism and socialism, building new driving forces that are not monetary in nature, and not transactional, i.e. don't depend on markets for [[distribution]] and [[dissemination]]. Moreover, ''peer production'' doesn't need the state for protection, it deploys in a trans-national space, a new frontier, beyond the power of nation-states to influence, as it has been shaped by a drive towards economic sovereignty, within a context of power struggles (more on [[p2p\|history of p2p).

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
-On this wiki we make a distinction between ''commons-based peer production'' (CBPP), proposed by [[Yochai Benkler]] in 2001, and our notion of ''peer production''.
+On this wiki we make a distinction between [[commons-based peer production]] (CBPP), proposed by [[Yochai Benkler]] in 2001, and our own notion of ''peer production''.
 * CBPP is mediated by centralized platforms (ex. Wikipedia), as when Benkler published his studies blockchain and other p2p infrastructures didn't exist. ''Peer production'' is mediated by infrastructure that is under the [[nondominium]] [[property]] regime. The difference is significant, since the [[nondominium]] infrastructure is ''capture resistant''.
 * Also, Benkler spoke about ''digital'' social production, he did not extend his CBPP theory to material production. ''Peer production'', as practiced by Sensorica, encompass all production, including material.
 * Benkler presented CBPP as entirely bypassing the market. Sensorica's use of ''peer production'' includes market transactions, but it also includes other modes of [[distribution]] and [[dissemination]].
 A good example of ''peer production'' of digital services is [[Bitcoin]].
-A good example of ''peer production'' of digital services is [[Bitcoin]]. It can be seen as a [[permissionless]] distributed network of [[agents]] (miners, blockchain developers, clients and other service providers that rely on the main network) that provides a global and very secure [[token]] exchange service. Some argue that this service amounts to a "store of [[value]]", others consider it as a [[currency]]. Bitcoin, with its underlying [[blockchain]] technology has ushered a new age in ''peer production'', with the emergence of the [[DAO]] (''decentralized autonomous organizations'') movement. The scale and high level of reliability of the Bitcoin service suggests that ''peer production'' can lead to very high quality outcomes. The longevity of the Bitcoin network and its adoption over time also suggests that ''peer production'' can be very transformative. This seems to be very puzzling for skeptics who have criticized ''peer production'' for some of its unreliable or mediocre outcomes.
+It can be seen as a [[permissionless]] distributed network of [[agents]] (miners, blockchain developers, clients and other service providers that rely on the main network) that provides a global and very secure [[token]] exchange service.

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:11, 8 June 2026
Line 21:		Line 21:

	=Evolution/adaptation of ''peer production'' within the current economic system=		=Evolution/adaptation of ''peer production'' within the current economic system=
−	: NOTE: This was imported from [https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Can_Peer_Production_Make_Washing_Machines%3F#Sensorica%27s_OVN_response a page on the P2P wiki]	+	: NOTE: This was imported from [https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Can_Peer_Production_Make_Washing_Machines%3F#Sensorica%27s_OVN_response a page on the P2P Foundation wiki]

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 : ''Peer production (also known as mass collaboration) is a way of producing goods and services that relies on self-organizing communities of individuals. In such communities, the labor of many people is coordinated towards a shared outcome. Peer production is a process taking advantage of new collaborative possibilities afforded by the internet and has become a widespread mode of labor. Free and [[open source]] software and [[open source]] hardware are two examples of peer production. One of the earliest instances of networked peer production is Project Gutenberg, a project in which volunteers make out-of-copyright works available online. Other non-profit examples include Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia (which has been described as "one of the most classic examples" of the peer production concept), Linux, a computer operating system, and Mozilla, a browser. Peer production occurs in a socio-technical system which allows thousands of individuals to effectively cooperate to create a non-exclusive given outcome (under [[commons]] and other forms of shared [[property]]). Implanting the principle of open collaboration, participants of peer production projects can join and leave at will (more on [[openness]]). These collective efforts are informal and non-unionized. Peer production is a collaborative effort with no limit to the amount of discussion or changes that can be made to the [[deliverable]]. However, as in the case of Wikipedia, a large amount, in fact the majority, of this collaborative effort is maintained by very few devoted and active individuals (also called [[longtail production]]).''
-=Evolution/adaptation of ''peer production\\ within the current economic system=
+=Evolution/adaptation of ''peer production'' within the current economic system=
-This was imported from [https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Can_Peer_Production_Make_Washing_Machines%3F#Sensorica%27s_OVN_response  a page on the P2P wiki]
+Defined neither by the motor of [[profit]], nor by central [[planning]]: to allocate [[resources]] and make decisions, it does not use market and pricing mechanisms, or managerial commands, but instead uses social relations. [[Peer production ]]is a significant part of the mainstream economy, even if it is not much advertised as such in mainstream economic literature.
-The following is an excerpt from a key essay by Graham Seaman. The original title is ''The Two Economies Or: Why the washing machine question is the wrong question''. [http://second.oekonux-conference.org/documentation/texts/Seaman.html]:
+The following is an excerpt from a key essay by '''Graham Seaman'''. The original title is ''The Two Economies Or: Why the washing machine question is the wrong question''. [http://second.oekonux-conference.org/documentation/texts/Seaman.html]:
@@ Line 53: / Line 53: @@
 This is not an unusual situation: there have been few times in history when a 'pure' mode of production, unmixed with fragments of other modes, existed. Some of these fragments are remnants of the past: personal slavery in parts of Northern Europe during the middle ages, or villages with communally allocated and rotated land in isolated parts of Southern Europe today. These fragments can often survive for long periods, integrated into the overall system and partially changed from their original form, but stable. Others are abortive glimpses of a future believed possible which turns out not to be so, such as the numerous experiments in communal working and living from the nineteenth century to the 60s and 70s of the last century, again often surviving for long periods. But the most interesting possibility is the fragment which turns out to be the replacement for the dominant mode of production.
 This leads to two major groups of questions:
-Firstly, what are the effects of the coexistence of two modes of production now?
+'''Firstly''', what are the effects of the coexistence of two modes of production now? How does the dependence of free software producers on the capitalist economy affect free software production?
 And what effect, if any, does free software production have on the surrounding capitalist mode of production?
-Secondly, is it possible for the free software mode of production to be generalized to the whole of society? And if so, how?
+'''Secondly''', is it possible for the free software mode of production to be generalized to the whole of society? And if so, how?
 Obviously, these are questions without definitive answers. Even those parts of the question which are purely empirical would need a major research program to answer properly. But that doesn't mean that it is pointless to try to suggest possible answers. One possible starting point is to look to the past, to one of the best documented changes: the break-up of the feudal system in pre-revolutionary England.
@@ Line 92: / Line 93: @@
 * The new mode of production must be able to spread to all important fields, but this does not need to be immediate -- full integration of agriculture within capitalism is still an ongoing process in most countries.
-The statement that 'free software is the kernel of a new mode of production' often leads to the question 'how can you make washing-machines in the same way'? This depends on your assumptions about what that way consists of: is the primary fact technological, the fact that reduced costs for computers have made software effectively a public good; or is it social, and the fact that people are working together in a new way that is primary?
+The statement that 'free software is the kernel of a new mode of production' often leads to the question 'how can you make washing-machines in the same way'? This depends on your assumptions about what that ''way'' consists of: is the primary fact ''technological'', the fact that reduced costs for computers have made software effectively a public good; or is it ''social'', and the fact that people are working together in a new way that is primary?
-If it is the first, then production of material goods in the same way needs them to be 'dematerialized': we must wait for the invention of matter transmitters before it becomes possible.
+If it is the first, then production of material goods in the same way needs them to be ''dematerialized'': we must wait for the invention of matter transmitters before it becomes possible.
 If the second, then it is possible to give a more optimistic answer: once working by free software principles has spread far enough throughout the economy that it reaches the people who make washing machines, they will know how to do it. In every revolution of the last hundred years, people have begun to take control of their own work. If the revolution has been defeated, their control has been taken away. If the revolution has won, their control has been taken away. But the possibility is there, and has been shown repeatedly, even though it rarely appears in history books. What free software has proved that is new is the possibility of this style of work on a large scale, sustained over a long period of time.
@@ Line 106: / Line 107: @@
-See more about the [http://ovn.world/index.php?title=Main_Page Open Value Network (OVN) model]. [[Sensorica]] is a pilot project for material peer production that uses the OVN model.
+See more about the [http://ovn.world/index.php?title=Main_Page Open Value Network (OVN) model]. [[Sensorica]] is a pilot project for ''material peer production'' that uses the [[OVN]] model.
@@ Line 116: / Line 117: @@
 In reality, it is both at the same time, in the sense that new means of production are introduced by a new technology and these means are first put into practice by people who already share some fringe cultural aspects.
 Graham is skeptical of the first, concluding that in order to apply the free software way of production, which we now call ''digital [[peer production]]'',
@@ Line 124: / Line 126: @@
-Let's now address Graham's conditions for material peer production to replace industrial manufacturing
+Let's now address Graham's conditions for ''material peer production'' to replace industrial manufacturing
 * '''''A new mode of production appears in a leading part of the economy, which may not be the main basis for the old system: here, manufacture, not agriculture.'''''
-This is true for digital peer production, open source software for example. Once the practice was structured it spread into other areas such as publications (Wikipedia), digital services (Bitcoin), etc. When this new open and collaborative mode of production spread to hardware, it did it with 3D printing (RepRap online community) and shortly after with drones (DIY Drones online community), two bleeding edge and disruptive technologies. These technologies already existed, they were protected by patents and were prohibitively expensive, but meanwhile other support technologies had evolved to the point of disrupting. Once the patents expired, engineers and hobbyists that embraced the open culture seized the opportunity and designed consumer grade machines at only a fraction of the cost, generating hype around 3D printers and drones.
+This is true for ''digital peer production'', open source software for example. Once the practice was structured it spread into other areas such as publications (Wikipedia), digital services (Bitcoin), etc. When this new open and collaborative mode of production spread to hardware, it did it with 3D printing (RepRap online community) and shortly after with drones (DIY Drones online community), two bleeding edge and disruptive technologies. These technologies already existed, they were protected by patents and were prohibitively expensive, but meanwhile other support technologies had evolved to the point of disrupting. Once the patents expired, engineers and hobbyists that embraced the open culture seized the opportunity and designed consumer grade machines at only a fraction of the cost, generating hype around 3D printers and drones.
 * '''''A new mode of production is not purely willed into existence, but is a natural outgrowth of the old.'''''