Paper Reading #2 - Edits & credits

Comments:
Comment 1
Comment 2

Reference:
Title: Edits & Credits: Exploring Integration and Attribution in Online Creative Collaboration
Authors: Kurt Luther, Nicholas Diakopoulos, Amy Bruckman
Venue: CHI EA 2010, April 10-15, 2010

Summary:
In this paper, the authors describe how online collaborative works are put together, and how credit is given to the authors. They did this by interviewing 17 authors of collaborative works as well as what they call "cr-editors," or the leaders of these team projects, on a flash animation website named Newgrounds.

(Picture taken from Newgrounds Main Page)

What they discovered was that cr-editors had two main problems when making their collaborations: determining which works to include in a collaboration and deciding which authors should get the most credit. When it came to selecting authors' works, there were two main methods: selection by quality and a first-come first-serve method. Most cr-editors didn't have a favorite method; instead, they chose based on how high-quality they wanted their works to be. The first-come first-serve method often gave more prospective entries, while the quality selection method gave less entries, but the quality was better. When it came to giving credit to authors, cr-editors felt that the system made the process difficult. Newgrounds has multiple levels of authorship, with the highest only allowing a maximum of 10 people. Since only the highest level gives links to the author's page, it is a coveted position, and cr-editors found it difficult to choose who should go on it. However, the cr-editors liked Newgrounds' system better than others like Youtube, where only one collaborator can be listed.

Discussion:
I found this article interesting because I never knew that authorship of these online works was so competitive. I figured it was simple on these sites to give credit, and it saddens me to know that it is such a difficult process. I believe that the main fault of this paper is that while they point out the issues in the process, they do not provide a solution. Thus, I believe the first step to come after this paper should be positing a process by which collaborative works can be given credit quickly and painlessly.