Talk:Social peer-to-peer processes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Can someone please explain why this is separate from the Peer-to-peer article. I have proded it as a pointless fork but it has been unproded by mallarme. Thought I would ask before putting it though afd. Thanks--Backface 13:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Removing memetics category[edit]

I am removing the memetics category from this article since you learn no more about the article's contents from the category and v.v. Since so many things may be memes we should try to keep the category closely defined in order to remain useful. Hope you're okay with that. The link to meme would be enough I suggest. Facius 18:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This page doesn't make any sense to somebody trying to understand what it is, especially the definition section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alank47 (talkcontribs) 02:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This is such nonsense a) it implies that group co-operation was unknown until peer to peer file sharing came along and b) it assumes there are such entities as memes existing in the world whereas they are a purely theoretical construct.--Rodmunday (talk) 09:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I will create an article "Social peer-to-peer processes", to replace this article. Teilolondon (talk) 15:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for criteria for inclusion of references to people[edit]

The face of this article reads:

"This list of "famous" or "notable" persons has no clear inclusion or exclusion criteria. Please help to define clear inclusion criteria and edit the list to contain only appropriate entries."

It seems clear to me that the criteria is *in* the article itself, which deals with Peer-to-peer politics, science, etc. Peer-to-peer emerged in several circles world wide as a metaphor and symbolic reference to the activities, world views, and perspectives that this article describes. The people listed in the article are people who are active in the areas of thinking referenced. There is now a Peer-to-peer academic research network headquartered at University of Salford, Manchester, UK. There also was a conference on the Political Economies of Peer Production at Nottingham Trent University in 2007. --Samrose (talk) 03:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

P2P organizational format of #OWS[edit]

For me #OWS seems to have P2P organizational format. P2P processes are defined by three fundamental aspects (peer production, governance and property). #OWS is not producing something. The movement wants to achieve a common good through change, but it is not production. Should we change the definition of P2P processes? Teilolondon (talk) 07:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I discovered that there is no need to do it. Michel Bauwens answered to my email: "I think ows produces a political commons and does that pretty much in a standard peer production way, they have a commons, zuccoti park, they have the general assembly and different substructures, but which do not command and control the movement, for example, the finance working group, which looks for money, they have sophisticad provisioning systems. The last three are equivalent to the for-benefit associations in open source, finally, they have an enterpreneurial coalition, such as the ows street vendor association, I have documented this through, in detail, so, ows produces 'politics', and it has governance, it has no clear property, but the commons aspect, i.e. it can be used and remixed... " Teilolondon (talk) 12:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)