From Studyplace

Introduction

This study is concerned with the theoretical foundations forwarded to explain motivation in systems of social software. By social software, I mean networked software systems that rely on the labor and intelligence of end-users in order to function (see table 1); any system where user contributions are so central that it could not possibly exist without them. By this definition most blogs are out, most wikis are in, etc. Our table lists some of the largest, most popular, and fastest growing sites on the Web.

As noted, though, these sites would not exist without user contributions. My question then is, why do they do it? Why do they spend their time and energy writing Wikipedia articles and editing video for YouTube? Why do they share their family photos on Flickr? Why do they post links to Slashdot for thousands of people they don't know?

Category	Examples
News	Slashdot Reddit Digg
Wiki	Wikipedia Wikitravel AboutUs WikiHow Facebook Developers Wiki
Media sharing	YouTube Flickr
Social Networks	MySpace Facebook LinkedIn Orkut

Table 1 - examples and categories of software and sites considered "social software" for the purposes of this essay

Hackers

Pop-culture mega-sites like YouTube and MySpace are in many ways the unlikely offspring of geeky computer hackers^[1]; a group known more for endlessly debating the merits of command line editors (Jargon File::Holy Wars, 2008) than launching billion dollar media companies. Still, their impact on our new networked society is undeniable. Hopefully trying to understand why they hack can shed some light on our broader question of motivation.

To begin we'll turn to Richard Stallman. Stallman is an accomplished software developer and computer scientist, working at the noted MIT Artifical Intelligence lab from the mid-70s to the early 80s (Stallman, 2008). He is best known, though, for starting the Free Software Foundation (FSF) and, more generally, as the founder of the free software movement. Free software embodies 4 essential freedoms (Free Software Foundation, 2008). Essentially these freedoms guarantee the right to use, study, distribute, and modify software. A prerequisite being access to the source code.

Stallman's own motivation is ideological more than pragmatic. "Free software is a matter of liberty, not price (Free Software Foundation, 2008)." Software fills a societal need, both commercial and non-commercial. Stallman reminds us that the U.S. constitution does not guarantee the rights of authors and inventors as an end, but rather grants Congress the power to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; (U.S. Constitution, 1787/2008. Article 1, Section 8)". Stallman argues that non-free software — software with a private owner who restricts its use — has a harmful effect on society in general. Obstructing the free use of software limits the total number of people who can benefit from using it, blocks people from helping themselves by adapting the software to their needs, and prevents people from learning from the work of others. Further, these results cause "psychosocial harm" to society, encouraging a cynical individualism that discourages both self-reliance and public spirit (Stallman, 1992).

Stallman identifies and refutes the main challenge to his stance: that we need private ownership of software to create an incentive for its development. First he observes that there are and always have been occupations where participants are driven by non-market forces. While not all artists and musicians are literally starving, they stand as a clear example that people pursue their passion even with little hope for economic benefit. He does not require opponents to concede that software inspires the same passion as art, noting:

He also notes that remuneration often works as a disincentive (1992), an idea that we'll look at in greater detail when we turn to the work of Yochai Benkler.

Stallman suggests that programmers traditionally and will again, given the opportunity, follow their passion to create software for the "joy of accomplishment", because "programming is fun", and because of the "constructive competition" between programmers (1992). Without denying these rationales, they only give us hints as to why the original hackers hacked or, in our contemporary case, Wikipedia editors write. What is fun about programming? What is it that software developers accomplish? Why and how does competition motivate people to great efforts?

Stallman makes a compelling argument for the productivity gains free software offers, saying:

Stallman's foundation for the productive gains of the free software model become central to many later arguments for adopting the open source model for software and other collaborative measures.

Stallman and the <abbr title="free software foundation">FSF</abbr> identify three main forces propelling the free software movement, addressing ideological, social, and utilitarian drives. Ideologically, free software has little to do with software. In these terms, free software becomes a positive model for all societal interactions, preaching an ethos of self-reliance and mutual support. The ideology of free software can be a strong motivator, but, obviously, only for those who are aligned with its very specific ideology.

Stallman presents drops this bomb as if it were common sense, but the idea that cooperation trumps property rights (i.e. copyright) runs counter to liberal tradition and is open to strong opposition.

The social forces — fun, competition — identified may prove a more accessible motivator for many people. Although Stallman's analysis of how these drives come to play in software development is thin, we'll see that other writers explore them in more detail.

In the end, Stallman's practical claim that the net benefit to society is greater under the free and open model appears to have garnered the most support among other writers, especially as the topic moves beyond software to include all manner of collaborative creative efforts. As we continue to trace this thread we'll be careful to see if the dominance of the practical, market motivation eclipses or enhances the ideological and social motivators.

coming soon: Linus Torvalds, Eric Raymond, Pekka Hinamen, and Paul Graham

Markets, Liberalism, & Personal Freedom

coming...

Consumerism 2.0

coming...

Comments

References

Notes

1. ↑ This is the obligatory disclaimer that I mean "hacker" in the original good sense of someone who is curious and passionate about programming (or any other art/craft/pursuit), not in the black hat meaning of someone who cracks computer security systems or pirates software.