The Cost of Collaboration for Code and Art: Evidence from Remixing
40
The Cost of Collaboration for Code and Art Evidence from a Remixing Community Benjamin Mako Hill 1,2 [email protected] Andrés Monroy-Hernández 2,3 [email protected] 1 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2 Berkman Center, Harvard University 3 Microsoft Research February 26, 2013 revision: b047d49 (2013/02/26)
-
Upload
andres-monroy-hernandez -
Category
Documents
-
view
111 -
download
2
Transcript of The Cost of Collaboration for Code and Art: Evidence from Remixing
The Cost of Collaboration for Code and ArtEvidence from a Remixing Community
Benjamin Mako Hill1,2
[email protected]és Monroy-Hernández2,3
1 Massachusetts Institute of Technology2 Berkman Center, Harvard University
3 Microsoft Research
February 26, 2013
revision: b047d49 (2013/02/26)
Peer Production and Remixing
Benkler (2006); Raymond (1999); Lessig (2008); von Hippel (2005); Giles (2005);Wilkinson and Huberman (2007); Kittur and Kraut (2008), etc.
2 / 17
Remixing
The reworking and recombination of existing creative artifacts.Most commonly in reference to music, video, and interactive media.
É Widespread, and an important new communication modality (e.g.,Manovich 2005; Lessig 2009)
É Especially among use youth (Jenkins 2006; Palfrey and Gasser 2008)
3 / 17
Criticism of Peer Production
Others have suggested that peer productionand remixing are amateurish and poor quality
(e.g., Lanier, 2010; Keen, 2007).
4 / 17
“Could Hamlet have been written by a committee,or the Mona Lisa painted by a club? Could theNew Testament have been composed as aconference report? Creative ideas do not springfrom groups. They spring from individuals. Thedivine spark leaps from the finger of God to thefinger of Adam.”
– A. Whitney Griswold (1957)
5 / 17
Research Questions
RQ1: Are remixes, on average, higher quality
than single-authored works?
RQ2: Are code-intensive remixes, on average,
higher quality than media-intensive
remixes?
6 / 17
Research Questions
RQ1: Are remixes, on average, higher quality
than single-authored works?
RQ2: Are code-intensive remixes, on average,
higher quality than media-intensive
remixes?
6 / 17
Research Site
É A computer programmingenvironment
É An online community for
sharing projects
É Designed and built around
collaboration through remixing
7 / 17
Research Site
É A computer programmingenvironment
É An online community for
sharing projects
É Designed and built around
collaboration through remixing
7 / 17
Research Site
É A computer programmingenvironment
É An online community for
sharing projects
É Designed and built around
collaboration through remixing
7 / 17
Data and Measures
1,271,085 projects shared before April 1, 2011.
Outcome:
É Loveits
Independent Variables:
É Collaborativeness (Is project a remix?).
É Control blocks (similar to lines of code)
É Media elements including image and sound files.
Additional controls:
É Number of views
É Creator tenure, gender and age
10 / 17
Data and Measures
1,271,085 projects shared before April 1, 2011.
Outcome:
É Loveits
Independent Variables:
É Collaborativeness (Is project a remix?).
É Control blocks (similar to lines of code)
É Media elements including image and sound files.
Additional controls:
É Number of views
É Creator tenure, gender and age
10 / 17
Data and Measures
1,271,085 projects shared before April 1, 2011.
Outcome:
É Loveits
Independent Variables:
É Collaborativeness (Is project a remix?).
É Control blocks (similar to lines of code)
É Media elements including image and sound files.
Additional controls:
É Number of views
É Creator tenure, gender and age
10 / 17
Data and Measures
1,271,085 projects shared before April 1, 2011.
Outcome:
É Loveits
Independent Variables:
É Collaborativeness (Is project a remix?).
É Control blocks (similar to lines of code)
É Media elements including image and sound files.
Additional controls:
É Number of views
É Creator tenure, gender and age
10 / 17
Methods
Negative binomial regression model on a count of loveits.
loveits = β+β log blocks +β log media+βisremix +
β log blocks× isremix +β log media× isremix +
βage+βjoined +βfemale+β log prevloveits +β log views
11 / 17
Results: Plots of Prototypical Projects
Blocks Media Elements
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
50 100 150 200 10 20 30 40
Love
its
De Novo
Remix
12 / 17
Results: Plots of Prototypical Projects
Blocks Media Elements
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
50 100 150 200 10 20 30 40
Love
its
De Novo
Remix
RQ1: Remixes are rated lower.
12 / 17
Results: Plots of Prototypical Projects
Blocks Media Elements
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
50 100 150 200 10 20 30 40
Love
its
De Novo
Remix
RQ1: Remixes are rated lower.
RQ2: Code-intense remixes are rated higher.Media-intense remixes are rated lower.
12 / 17
Example: Code Intense Project
Original Remix
Remix received about the same loveits than theantecedent.
13 / 17
Example: Code Intense Project
Original Remix
Remix received about the same loveits than theantecedent.
13 / 17
Example: Media Intense Project
Original Remix
Remix received less loveits than antecedent.
14 / 17
Example: Media Intense Project
Original Remix
Remix received less loveits than antecedent.
14 / 17
Limitations
É Ratings are a single and imperfect measure of
quality
É Code & Media≈ Functional & Artistic
É Remixes and antecedents projects may
compete for loveits
É Generalizability beyond Scratch, beyond kids,
beyond remixing.
15 / 17
Limitations
É Ratings are a single and imperfect measure of
quality
É Code & Media≈ Functional & Artistic
É Remixes and antecedents projects may
compete for loveits
É Generalizability beyond Scratch, beyond kids,
beyond remixing.
15 / 17
Limitations
É Ratings are a single and imperfect measure of
quality
É Code & Media≈ Functional & Artistic
É Remixes and antecedents projects may
compete for loveits
É Generalizability beyond Scratch, beyond kids,
beyond remixing.
15 / 17
Limitations
É Ratings are a single and imperfect measure of
quality
É Code & Media≈ Functional & Artistic
É Remixes and antecedents projects may
compete for loveits
É Generalizability beyond Scratch, beyond kids,
beyond remixing.
15 / 17
Takeaways and Final Thoughts
Remixes are rated lower than de novo projects byScratch users.
É More code = smaller gap
É More media = wider gap
16 / 17
Takeaways and Final Thoughts
Remixes are rated lower than de novo projects byScratch users.
É More code = smaller gap
É More media = wider gap
16 / 17
References
Benkler, Y. (2006, May). The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets andFreedom. Yale University Press.
Giles, J. (2005, December). Internet encyclopaedias go head to head. Nature 438(7070), 900–901.
Griswold, A. W. (1957, June). Baccalaureate address.
Keen, A. (2007, June). The Cult of the Amateur: How Today’s Internet is Killing Our Culture (3rdPrinting ed.). Crown Business.
Kittur, A. and R. E. Kraut (2008). Harnessing the wisdom of crowds in wikipedia: quality throughcoordination. San Diego, CA, USA, pp. 37–46. ACM.
Lanier, J. (2010, January). You Are Not a Gadget: A Manifesto (1 ed.). Knopf.
Lessig, L. (2008, October). Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy.Penguin Press HC.
Raymond, E. S. (1999). The cathedral and the bazaar: Musings on Linux and open source by anaccidental revolutionary. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly and Associates.
von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Wilkinson, D. M. and B. A. Huberman (2007). Cooperation and quality in wikipedia. In Proceedingsof the 2007 international symposium on Wikis, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, pp. 157–164. ACM.
17 / 17
Example andExample andData AppendixData Appendix
Empirical Model
loveits = β+β log blocks +β log media+βisremix +
β log blocks× isremix +β log media× isremix +
βage +βjoined +βfemale +β log prevloveits +β log views
[RQ1] Are remixes, on average, rated as higher qualitythan de novo projects?
[RQ1] Are code-intensive remixes, on average, rated ashigher quality than media-intensive remixes?
19 / 17
Empirical Model
loveits = β+β log blocks +β log media+βisremix +
β log blocks× isremix +β log media× isremix +
βage +βjoined +βfemale +β log prevloveits +β log views
[RQ1] Are remixes, on average, rated as higher qualitythan de novo projects?
[RQ1] Are code-intensive remixes, on average, rated ashigher quality than media-intensive remixes?
19 / 17
Empirical Model
loveits = β+β log blocks +β log media+βisremix +
β log blocks× isremix +β log media× isremix +
βage +βjoined +βfemale +β log prevloveits +β log views
[RQ1] Are remixes, on average, rated as higher qualitythan de novo projects?
[RQ1] Are code-intensive remixes, on average, rated ashigher quality than media-intensive remixes?
19 / 17
Regression Results
(Intercept) −3.359∗ −4.828∗
log blocks 0.166∗ 0.076∗
log media 0.384∗ 0.086∗
log isremix 0.279∗ −0.091∗
female 0.000 0.284∗
age −0.006∗ −0.002∗
joined −0.020∗ −0.008∗
prevloveits 0.568∗ 0.076∗
log blocks×isremix 0.059∗ 0.021∗
log media×isremix −0.305∗ −0.103∗
views 1.226∗
N 1239470 1239470log L -901476 -707714∗∗ indicates significance at p< .01
20 / 17
