Free and open source software and open source hardware are two examples of peer production. One of the first instances of peer-to-peer production is Project Gutenberg, a project in which volunteers make copyright-free works available online. Examples include Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia, and Linux, a computer operating system. For-profit companies primarily use partial implementations of peer-to-peer manufacturing, on sites such as Flickr, Etsy, Digg, and Delicious, among others.[7]​ Peer-to-peer production can also be used by sharing open source hardware designs to replicate with digital manufacturing technologies such as RepRap 3D printers. Peer production refers to the production process on which the previous examples are based. Commons-based peer production is a subset of peer production.

Crowdsourced products, like community cookbooks, are a form of peer production. Peer production is also expanding beyond knowledge production, into the realm of manufacturing.[8]​ For example, there are now several types of open source appropriate technology such as the use of biomaterials.[9]​.

Peer production has also been used in the collaborative production of open educational resources (OER). Massive open online course (MOOC) platforms have also generated interest in building online e-books. Peer to Peer University has applied the principles of peer production to online open learning communities and peer-to-peer learning.

The learning process is free, self-taught, without feedback, as happens on Wikipedia and provokes a personal development of self-regulation. Collaborative work does not generate a sense of group, but rather one of collaboration for knowledge, unlike cooperative work that focuses on its execution by a group that "helps enhance affective, attitudinal and motivational aspects, generating positive inputs for the achievement of learning." The fact of participating in a project with clear objectives gives a sense of belonging, but it is not focused on generating bonds of friendship, nor do the projects function as a social network.

The objective of collaborative work is to produce tangible knowledge, of general use, in addition to generating extra motivation in all participants in this work.

The Wikipedia encyclopedia is an example of a collaborative platform whose purpose is the free dissemination of knowledge, through the work of millions of users[10]​ who daily update and improve their content and who only interact based on the content, to discuss the relevance or not of any collaboration.

Normally people tend to confuse teamwork and collaborative work, the main differences can be summarized:

In collaborative work, psychological processes of different kinds are combined. On the one hand, there is the cognitive activity carried out by the participants regarding domain knowledge, which implies the co-construction of knowledge. On the other hand, there is the meta-group activity carried out by the participants to regulate the task, participation and motivation of the group.[11]​.

Working as a team is important, but it is even more important to learn to do it collaboratively, leading to more productive and effective groups. Collaborative work is configured flexibly according to the needs of the projects and promotes environments for fluid communication, creating spaces where everyone has the opportunity to express their points of view. In this sense, methodologies are emerging that are based on the collaborative work system.[12]​ Marta Romo, managing partner of Be-Up,[13]​ mentions the Agile model, in which "it is accepted that problems are not well defined and the development of projects is dynamic, as it is open to changes. Likewise, it grants shared responsibility to all members of a team. For example, you can have a different boss depending on the project in which you participate or there is a profile that energize and facilitate the resolution of interactions.

Contenido

Las teorías de educación actuales plantean la necesidad de crear estructuras de aprendizaje cooperativo generalizadas, puesto que cuando las personas cooperan:.

La implantación de una estructura colaborativa en educación sólo puede construirse sobre la base de una cultura de la cooperación que:.

School knowledge and collaborative work

The social changes introduced by information and communication technologies (ICT) in recent years are very important. And like all great social changes, they go through the lives of all people. This makes the incorporation, integration and pedagogical use of these technologies in school today essential. Being connected and being able to participate in the world of communication and information is already part of a citizen's right. New ways of living and working together, new modes of communication and relationships are transforming educational settings and ways of teaching and learning. Space, time, nature and communications are not thought of in the same way as before having the technologies that expanded the world and its view. Today, technologies make it possible to have a huge cultural archive like never before and to participate in processes of collective construction of knowledge in a way that was not known before. Schools then become fundamental spaces to achieve digital inclusion and ensure that young people from all sectors have access to technology and what it makes possible. The value of collaborative work responds to a pedagogical model that emphasizes interaction and the collective construction of knowledge, which are undoubtedly optimized when combined with networking. Collaboration in the classroom context invites teachers and students to walk together, adding efforts, talents and skills. It encourages learning by doing, learning by interacting, and learning by sharing.[16]​.

On few occasions, reference has been made to this strategy as a cultural model, whether in the work or educational aspect, but the best way to understand the current moment is that interpersonal relationships are interwoven from language as the main technique of this form of cultivation[17]​ of the human, therefore, we can approach the definition of culture as a survival technique, an instrument of conservation,[17]​ this definition of culture little worked on in academic spaces allows us to understand the levels of relationship that telematics and its processes have brought to relationships and exchanges in all cultures around the world.

This technique allows us to break with a structural conception of the behavior of subjects that have been constructed as such in the Western and liberal model, since it has the element that puts the model of individual competition in crisis, changing the conception of competition and competitiveness for one of collective or a view of the common, the idea of ​​community work, in pursuit of the increase of knowledge and knowing as that common goal, not restricted and closed like spatialized circles. Which implies that knowledge is put into circulation, not as an individualized contribution, but as a common space and critique of the model on which individualized knowledge has been understood in its process until now.

Various critics have challenged the prevailing optimism with which peer production is viewed.

Daniel Kreiss, Megan Finn, and Fred Turner criticize the consensus view of peer production as utopian. In stating that this new mode of production challenges the traditional form of bureaucracy, they refer to Max Weber's analysis of modern bureaucracy and urge that this analysis be applied to peer production. They argue that bureaucracy is better equipped to handle social problems than peer production, which they consider unsustainable. As bureaucracy promotes a rationally organized and rule-oriented functioning of society, Kreiss, Finn and Turner argue that peer production undermines this aspect due to its tendency to encourage individual behavior based on private morality.[18]​.

Other critics claim that the participatory nature of peer production can lead to misinformation and substandard products.[19]​.

In addition to these views, some critics claim that peer production works better in some contexts than in others.[20] Some indicate that it is less efficient outside of software development, and that it will require a search for new ways to ensure quality.[18] Peer production can produce functional works such as encyclopedias more competently than creative works. Despite the valuable potential of peer production, several critics continue to doubt broad collaboration and its ability to produce high-quality results.[20]​.

Free and open source software and open source hardware are two examples of peer production. One of the first instances of peer-to-peer production is Project Gutenberg, a project in which volunteers make copyright-free works available online. Examples include Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia, and Linux, a computer operating system. For-profit companies primarily use partial implementations of peer-to-peer manufacturing, on sites such as Flickr, Etsy, Digg, and Delicious, among others.[7]​ Peer-to-peer production can also be used by sharing open source hardware designs to replicate with digital manufacturing technologies such as RepRap 3D printers. Peer production refers to the production process on which the previous examples are based. Commons-based peer production is a subset of peer production.

Crowdsourced products, like community cookbooks, are a form of peer production. Peer production is also expanding beyond knowledge production, into the realm of manufacturing.[8]​ For example, there are now several types of open source appropriate technology such as the use of biomaterials.[9]​.

Peer production has also been used in the collaborative production of open educational resources (OER). Massive open online course (MOOC) platforms have also generated interest in building online e-books. Peer to Peer University has applied the principles of peer production to online open learning communities and peer-to-peer learning.

The learning process is free, self-taught, without feedback, as happens on Wikipedia and provokes a personal development of self-regulation. Collaborative work does not generate a sense of group, but rather one of collaboration for knowledge, unlike cooperative work that focuses on its execution by a group that "helps enhance affective, attitudinal and motivational aspects, generating positive inputs for the achievement of learning." The fact of participating in a project with clear objectives gives a sense of belonging, but it is not focused on generating bonds of friendship, nor do the projects function as a social network.

The objective of collaborative work is to produce tangible knowledge, of general use, in addition to generating extra motivation in all participants in this work.

The Wikipedia encyclopedia is an example of a collaborative platform whose purpose is the free dissemination of knowledge, through the work of millions of users[10]​ who daily update and improve their content and who only interact based on the content, to discuss the relevance or not of any collaboration.

Normally people tend to confuse teamwork and collaborative work, the main differences can be summarized:

In collaborative work, psychological processes of different kinds are combined. On the one hand, there is the cognitive activity carried out by the participants regarding domain knowledge, which implies the co-construction of knowledge. On the other hand, there is the meta-group activity carried out by the participants to regulate the task, participation and motivation of the group.[11]​.

Working as a team is important, but it is even more important to learn to do it collaboratively, leading to more productive and effective groups. Collaborative work is configured flexibly according to the needs of the projects and promotes environments for fluid communication, creating spaces where everyone has the opportunity to express their points of view. In this sense, methodologies are emerging that are based on the collaborative work system.[12]​ Marta Romo, managing partner of Be-Up,[13]​ mentions the Agile model, in which "it is accepted that problems are not well defined and the development of projects is dynamic, as it is open to changes. Likewise, it grants shared responsibility to all members of a team. For example, you can have a different boss depending on the project in which you participate or there is a profile that energize and facilitate the resolution of interactions.

Contenido

Las teorías de educación actuales plantean la necesidad de crear estructuras de aprendizaje cooperativo generalizadas, puesto que cuando las personas cooperan:.

La implantación de una estructura colaborativa en educación sólo puede construirse sobre la base de una cultura de la cooperación que:.

School knowledge and collaborative work

The social changes introduced by information and communication technologies (ICT) in recent years are very important. And like all great social changes, they go through the lives of all people. This makes the incorporation, integration and pedagogical use of these technologies in school today essential. Being connected and being able to participate in the world of communication and information is already part of a citizen's right. New ways of living and working together, new modes of communication and relationships are transforming educational settings and ways of teaching and learning. Space, time, nature and communications are not thought of in the same way as before having the technologies that expanded the world and its view. Today, technologies make it possible to have a huge cultural archive like never before and to participate in processes of collective construction of knowledge in a way that was not known before. Schools then become fundamental spaces to achieve digital inclusion and ensure that young people from all sectors have access to technology and what it makes possible. The value of collaborative work responds to a pedagogical model that emphasizes interaction and the collective construction of knowledge, which are undoubtedly optimized when combined with networking. Collaboration in the classroom context invites teachers and students to walk together, adding efforts, talents and skills. It encourages learning by doing, learning by interacting, and learning by sharing.[16]​.

On few occasions, reference has been made to this strategy as a cultural model, whether in the work or educational aspect, but the best way to understand the current moment is that interpersonal relationships are interwoven from language as the main technique of this form of cultivation[17]​ of the human, therefore, we can approach the definition of culture as a survival technique, an instrument of conservation,[17]​ this definition of culture little worked on in academic spaces allows us to understand the levels of relationship that telematics and its processes have brought to relationships and exchanges in all cultures around the world.

This technique allows us to break with a structural conception of the behavior of subjects that have been constructed as such in the Western and liberal model, since it has the element that puts the model of individual competition in crisis, changing the conception of competition and competitiveness for one of collective or a view of the common, the idea of ​​community work, in pursuit of the increase of knowledge and knowing as that common goal, not restricted and closed like spatialized circles. Which implies that knowledge is put into circulation, not as an individualized contribution, but as a common space and critique of the model on which individualized knowledge has been understood in its process until now.

Various critics have challenged the prevailing optimism with which peer production is viewed.

Daniel Kreiss, Megan Finn, and Fred Turner criticize the consensus view of peer production as utopian. In stating that this new mode of production challenges the traditional form of bureaucracy, they refer to Max Weber's analysis of modern bureaucracy and urge that this analysis be applied to peer production. They argue that bureaucracy is better equipped to handle social problems than peer production, which they consider unsustainable. As bureaucracy promotes a rationally organized and rule-oriented functioning of society, Kreiss, Finn and Turner argue that peer production undermines this aspect due to its tendency to encourage individual behavior based on private morality.[18]​.

Other critics claim that the participatory nature of peer production can lead to misinformation and substandard products.[19]​.

In addition to these views, some critics claim that peer production works better in some contexts than in others.[20] Some indicate that it is less efficient outside of software development, and that it will require a search for new ways to ensure quality.[18] Peer production can produce functional works such as encyclopedias more competently than creative works. Despite the valuable potential of peer production, several critics continue to doubt broad collaboration and its ability to produce high-quality results.[20]​.