Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
C S C W
C S 4 5 5 8
Open
source
software
is
growing
and
it
is
thought
that
by
2011,
80%
of
all
software
will
be
open
source.
(Farr
et
al.
2008)
Depending
on
the
context
of
a
systems
use
allows
for
the
use
of
the
CSCW
matrix.
It
considers
work
contexts
on
whether
collaboration
is
co-‐located
or
geographically
distributed,
and
whether
individuals
collaborate
synchronously
or
asynchronously.
Case Studies
Articulation
Of
Wikiwork:
Uncovering
Valued
Work
In
Wikipedia
Through
Barnstars
(Kriplean
et
al.
2008)
Articulation
of
Wikiwork
investigates
and
characterises
the
range
of
work
valued
by
the
online
community
of
Wikipedia
contributors
through
the
use
of
barnstars.
Barnstars
are
tokens,
which
were
created
for
the
purpose
of
allowing
individuals
to
recognise
the
work
of
others
within
Wikipedia.
They
carry
high
value
to
receivers,
as
they
are
indications
of
the
good
work
contributed
by
them.
Experienced
editors
on
Wikipedia
give
the
majority
of
barnstars
to
other
valued
editors
on
Wikipedia,
they
are
given
for
editing,
mailing
list
contributions
etc.
The
authors
of
this
paper
collected
and
analysed
the
barnstars
from
the
November
2006
English
Wikipedia
dump.
The
barnstars
give
an
indication
of
the
most
work
done
and
the
most
appreciated
work
done
within
Wikipedia
from
the
most
experienced
contributors.
The
acknowledged
work
categories
which
people
received
barnstars
for
(in
most
popular
order)
are:
• Editing
Work
• Social
and
Community
Support
Actions
• Undifferentiated
Work
• Border
Patrol
• Administrative
Actions
• Collaborative
Actions
and
Dispositions
• Meta-‐Content
Work
Task Management
The
contributors
of
Wikipedia
use
several
methods
to
work
together
collaboratively.
Class/Instance
is
undertaken
to
articulate
work.
Template
and
category
authoring
and
application,
bot
programming
and
execution,
and
policy
authoring
and
enforcement
are
examples
of
this.
A
template
flags
a
work
that
needs
to
be
done
or
gives
an
explanation
as
to
why
specific
work
was
done
(i.e.
why
a
person
was
blocked
from
the
site).
A
template
organizes
work
to
be
done.
It
brings
in
List-‐Based
work,
which
involves
going
to
a
page
and
dealing
with
several
tasks,
often
in
alphabetical
order.
It
not
only
organizes
the
content
of
the
page
but
also
the
work
to
be
done.
This
is
an
Program Bots
Program
bots
were
created
to
ease
the
work
of
editors.
With
Program
Bots
repetitive
tasks
can
be
completed
such
as
reversing
vandalism.
The
bot
can
be
programmed
to
edit
the
work
automatically
or
an
editor
can
direct
it
there.
Policy Environment
The
paper
on
coordination
of
free/libre
Open
Source
software
(FLOSS)
investigates
what
lessons
from
FLOSS
development
can
be
transferred
to
mainstream
software
development.
In
the
FLOSS
community
it
is
clear
that
the
developers
don’t
use
traditional
project
coordination
and
that
an
archetypical
community
is
in
place.
A
small
core
group
oversees
the
design
and
bulk
of
code
development,
and
developers
then
contribute
to
bug
fixes,
new
features,
documentation
and
support.
In
order
to
prevent
common
outputs
from
separate
tasks
a
method
has
to
be
in
place.
To
avoid
duplicating
tasks
users
are
encouraged
to
search
bug
tracker
database,
however
there
is
no
guarantee
of
correct
result
and
this
can
lead
to
developers
working
on
same
part
of
code.
Although
the
method
is
not
perfect,
this
coordination
mechanism
manages
the
dependency
of
two
tasks
that
have
duplicate
outcomes.
The
usability
of
the
software
development
process
means
that
there
is
a
system
in
place
to
ensure
that
the
output
of
a
task
is
usable
by
the
following
task.
In
this
case
the
usability
is
the
flow
of
dependency
from
finding
a
bug,
to
fixing
one.
A
user
finds
a
bug
and
reports
it.
The
users
may
not
know
what
info
is
sufficient
for
bug
report,
so
developer
must
follow
up
with
the
user
for
more
information.
This
was
done
via
e-‐mail
or
a
message
on
the
forum.
This
is
an
example
of
different
time/different
place
coordination.
The
task
assignment
within
FLOSS
is
done
on
a
voluntary
basis.
Users
post
a
description
of
task
in
the
forum,
and
if
a
developer
is
interested
he/she
submits
a
bid.
Anyone
can
work
on
tasks;
developers
may
also
suggest
others
who
might
be
best
suited
to
the
task.
There
is
no
hierarchy
or
delegation
of
tasks.
The
main
methods
for
the
destination
of
tasks
is
as
follows:
• Self
Assignment
• Ask
a
certain
person
• Ask
an
unspecified
person
• Ask
an
outsider
• Suggest
consulting
with
others
With
this
CSCW
method
applied
there
is
a
broad
participation
of
work
on
tasks.
The
main
problem
with
this
type
of
work
is
that
multiple
developers
may
be
working
on
same
parts
of
code
and
the
developer
may
be
unreliable
and
decide
to
finish
tasks
according
to
their
own
time
and
interest.
Conclusion
Within
these
papers
it
is
clear
how
Computer
Supported
Cooperative
Work
is
necessary.
The
methods
used
by
each
case
are
specific
to
their
own
needs,
a
forum,
mailing
list
or
list
based
system.
With
many
different
users
collaborating
over
a
certain
structure,
the
users
of
Open
Source
software
create
and
modify
their
own
systems
to
be
able
to
work
and
communicate
effectively
with
each
other;
these
methods
are
necessary
to
the
Open
Source
community
so
the
communication
and
coordination
of
working
in
a
different
time/different
place
makes
sense
and
doesn’t
become
obscure.
Reference
J.
Aaron
Farr
et
al.
(2008)
Making
Open
Source
Work
[online],
available:
http://www.cubiclemuses.com/cm/files/open_source_works.pdf
/
http://www.slideshare.net/jaaronfarr/making-‐open-‐source-‐work-‐presentation
[26/02/09]
Eugene
Eric
Kim.
(2003)
An
Introduction
to
Open
Source
Communities,
Blue
Oxen
Associates
LLC
Travis
Kriplean,
Ivan
Beschastnikh,
and
David
W.
McDonald.
(2008)
Articulation
Of
Wikiwork:
Uncovering
Valued
Work
In
Wikipedia
Through
Barnstars,
San
Diego,
California,
ACM
Kevin
Crowston,
Kangning
Wei,
Qing
Li,
U.
Yeliz
Esweyel
and
James
Howison
(2005)
Coordination
Of
Free/Libre
Open
Source
Software
Development,
Twenty-‐
Sixth
International
Conference
on
Information
Systems