Investigating open source further; a number of rising initiatives
are already at play in the world; ideas are out there being shared and manipulated
and coming into reality. There are however associated issues; ideas can be lost
in translation or indeed mis-communicated; if one does not understand another language,
whether that be cultural, visual or behavioural the purpose of a good or service
may be skewed or even unattainable. Likewise if ideas are not climatically or
regionally specific then a new set of design problems or consumption habits may
emerge.
It would seem then that open-source projects could benefit from a
mixture of approaches; a combination of openness and leadership; a balance
between inputs and outputs and a consideration of availability, appropriateness
and relevance. Using the 'crowd' could be a good way of achieving this as the
voice of citizens rather than an individual I would theorise focuses more upon
collective goals.
A virtual platform upon via which ideas can be shared and
moderated could be a highly relevant and engaging outcome as it would allow for
not only uninhibited participation but also accountability and advice. As an
example; the City 2.0 website is a
platform created to surface the myriad of stories and collective action being
taken by citizens around the world. If this global resource could be applied to
a local scale by bringing together regional platforms, initiatives, funding and
research then the possibilities for resilience at the level of a community such
as Paddington would be unimaginable.
The challenge I face however is to consider this in
application to a physical environment, one in which people move and reside. How
can people actively participation in a space that contains multiple meanings
and activities?
No comments:
Post a Comment