Talk:Cognitive Surplus

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bstahl2.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Copyedits required

 * Dealing more directly with the concept of the surplus itself, Bill Tomlinson and Six Silberman have argued that the contexts identified by Shirky as the cognitive surplus through social media technologies, but instead the result of a combination of economic and cultural factors.

This makes no sense in English. Viriditas (talk) 03:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've read it several times now, and I've looked at the original source. I can't make heads or tails of it, so I've deleted it but preserved the source in a further reading section. Viriditas (talk) 03:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, this book is extremely confusing. Shirky does not produce a very solid point of his discussion throughout the book. He simply just keeps adding onto and traveling from idea to idea, not coming to a summative conclusion. Gpecenka (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Cognitive surplus as a concept
Hello ! This article is about a book called Cognitive Surplus. You just added a lot of information to this article which is not about the book, but about "cognitive surplus" as a concept. Would you like to make a new Wikipedia article about the concept of cognitive surplus? If so, you can begin the process at WP:AfC. If you need help then the Teahouse invitation you have on your talk page would be a good place to start. I have removed your content for now - it simply is not about this book and does not belong here.

I see that you are part of a class assignment and today is your last day. If you do not have time to start this assignment now, and it really looks like you are just at the beginning, then please have your professor post to the Education noticeboard to begin discussing a resolution.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  13:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Improvements?
The example section seems distracting and could be included with the summary for the page. Maybe we could add more sources from more reviewers so we could have more verifiability? The introductory paragraph could be longer too. Isn't it supposed to give a brief overview on the page? The review section could be a bit longer if it isn't detailed enough already. I honestly feel like the chapter section is a bit out of place and could be included in the summary section. Wittc4321 (talk) 06:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Corinne
 * Yeah, it seems to me that there is a solid foundation for a good article here that just needs to be built upon--this is probably not a subject, judging from both the article itself and this talk page, that has received much attention. The summary reads more like a student summarizing the book for a paper rather than an encyclopedia entry (something ironic in that?).  That part, I think, should be rewritten to actually explain the concept of what cognitive surplus is and the larger argument that Shirky is making with his book, rather than describing each individual component of his argument (it seems unnecessary to specifically point out the part about the Industrial Revolution, for example, instead of just saying that the large point that Shirky was making with that example). This would be a somewhat large project, though.
 * I also agree that the chapter section is out of place and unnecessary (not to mention unsourced), and that the critical review section needs to be expanded to include what specifically has been said, both in favor of and against the book's argument. Heathercide (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with Corinne about the addition of more sources/reviewers to add verifiability. If we could throw in a few that focus around why the book itself matters, this may in turn enhance the summary that seems to be lacking at the beginning of the article. For the list of chapters, it may do well to simply eliminate the examples that are provided; when the examples are added, it will most likely detract a reader from wanting to read the entire piece because they can get a shortened version with a lot of the chapter's main points on the Wiki page for the book itself. If we stick to keeping the chapter list, but do not delve fully into the function or examples of each chapter, this may create a better opportunity for Shirky's book to be read on a larger scale. What may also be good at the beginning of the article would be a more descriptive analysis of the fact that Cognitive Surplus is an "indirect sequel" to Here Comes Everybody. That's just an idea though, any other thoughts? 152.228.91.8 (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * So that was my response but I was not logged into my Wiki account so I am now taking credit for what I typed prior to being logged in. Still trying to figure out this website a little! Kbraun95 (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Regarding the chapter section, mirroring similar books seems like a good route to take. However, the entire section is entirely unsourced. Presumably we could cite the book itself, though that brings me to another point: Cognitive Surplus is not a secondary source on itself, correct? In which case we're doing original research on the book itself when using it.Thenichi (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Cognitive Surplus can't be used to establish notability because it's not "independent" from the source. I do think it can be used for verifying, but I'm checking on your concern, Thenichi, with original research. Aschuet1 (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I think the chapter section of this article can be helpful. Considering the text was hard to follow for me, I'd find a chapter summary section to be useful. I just think it should be more detailed, yet still concise, giving way to a precise main idea. The critical response section could be more detailed. I wish it would be edited into something that shows discussion and analysis on Clay Shirky's ideas, must be well supported though by others of Shirky's same reputable standing.Gpecenka (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought that the chapter section was useful for a quick reference guide as Gepecenka mentioned. However, I do think that maybe the summary and chapter section could perhaps be integrated together while being a little bit more concise.  The last sentence of the Summary section, although relevant to the novel, just seemed out of place on the page. Also, again going off what Gpecenka noted about the critical reception section, there was not, in my opinion, information present there to justify a legitimate critical response of the public especially since it seemed somewhat one-sided.  Bryceg11 (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that the chapter summaries were useful, but I sort of wish that they were more detailed. It seemed like the first couple chapters had clear, detailed summaries, while the last few were very basic notes that only really make sense if you've read the book. The notes on Chapter 6 were frankly very disappointing; the idea that everything Shirky discussed in his book falls into one of the four categories-- personal, communal, public, or civic-- wasn't even touched on. I felt like this was a large part of the point Shirky was trying to make and it wasn't even a footnote on the Wikipedia page. I would at least include this information in the overall summary of the book. Bstahl2 (talk) 04:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I believe that adding a specific publishing date as well as a more specific academic subject matter to the info box may help bolster the page's general information of the book. Also, I am not sure what others thought of the Examples section, but it just seemed a little offputting.  Any others feel that way?  Lastly, I felt as if a little background of the book (i.e. inspiration, motivations, etc.) might help as well.  Of course, finding material to cite might be a little more difficult.  Bryceg11 (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I skimmed right past the examples section the first times I read, but I agree it's a bit offputting, particularly because of its jarring terseness. Also, I checked the sources and they're just the websites themselves. That doesn't really constitute evidence that they are examples of cognitive surplus, and it *really* does not expressly say anything about the text *Cognitive Surplus*. If the section is supposed to be examples of cognitive surplus, then maybe it belongs in a separate article on the phenomena (if notable enough) or a more clearly labeled (sub)subsection. I imagine the links to the example websites should be external links, whether inline or at the end, but certainly not references.Thenichi (talk) 23:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I was also offput by the Examples section. There was no explanation or reference to them earlier or later on the page (even in chapter summaries) that mentioned the examples. I enjoyed the chapter summaries, but as others felt, it was way too brief (but then again, Shirky's chapters could be summarized in a brief and simple manner so...). I also thought the last paragraph of the summary was unnecessary and out of place. It was more of just a fun fact stuck in there. 2601:248:C203:78F0:994D:5E48:DF28:1CE1 (talk) 04:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Is this Kannah or another student? Aschuet1 (talk) 18:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I feel as if the article, although over a brief book, lacked description. I feel that what may be missing is descriptions of the examples of what is discussed in each chapter. An example would be like to elaborate more of how the Gin Craze is compared to television consumption. Of course, you would have to have it remain neutral, but more elaboration besides a summary could determine whether or not people will end up caring about this article. Only a handful of the many examples and topics he covered in the book are discussed in this article, so I believe more should be added so those who heard of this book for the first time can better comprehend what Cognitive Surplus is about. The examples section seems off-putting and misplaced, perhaps it should be moved up before the Critical Reception section? Carlynewton (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with Carly about the article lacking description. I think the page gave a brief overview of the book, however, it sounds like more of a book review of others' opinions as oppose to telling Shirky purpose for writing this book. I also feel that the chapter list was a bit unnecessary and distracting to the readers of the article (I know it did for me) because it gave more of definitions of what those topics mean rather than giving a summary of the chapter. I feel that that the whole section needs to be omitted. What do you guys think? The examples section was also useless for this article because it does not relate/help telling what this book is about. Overall, I think that the summary section needs to be a bit more detailed discussing why Shirky wrote this book and the benefits of him exposing such things of the internet. 152.228.194.196 (talk) 05:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Kshelto1 (talk) 05:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Kahnah Sorry like Kate, I also forgot to login lol


 * I don't really know a whole lot about the kind of scholarship and/or research that has gone into "Cognitive Surplus", but it seems to me that the next logical step for this article would be to describe how Shirkey's ideas relate to other research that has been done in this field, possibly drawing off of the sources that Shirkey lists to figure out who is a player in the kinds of research that he is doing. I also think that his ideas regarding spheres of influence should probably be elaborated on in the article, since it is a fairly important part of the book. HorseShark (talk) 05:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I thought that the article did an alright job at summarizing what the book was about for someone who already has covered it. However for someone whose first exposure is the wikipedia article, it is a bit lacking. Especially in terms of its author, we should get some information on Clay Shirky in order to give the book context. The article does give an unbiased perspective on Cognitive Surplus, which is something. Overall it is a fairly underwhelming article. --Lyehyawi (talk) 15:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Bad Source Useage?
The Manjoo article cited in the summary section does not actually contain the information referencing it. The article does contain some interesting summary that could be moved into the article, but not entirely the information that's there. --Thenichi (talk) 14:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There are two sentences using this source. I presume you mean the first one is the problem, because the second one seems closely tied to the source.
 * Would it resolve the issue to remove the citation from the first sentence? Are you comfortable doing that? If so, do it, and if not, please give more information. Thanks.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  14:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, removing it from the first use would resolve the issue, so I'll go ahead and do that. At some point a new source will be needed.--Thenichi (talk) 14:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Sources that address Cognitive Surplus
Students from Engl 400 will list sources they find related to CS here. A brief summary will be useful. Also consider who else from the class might benefit from reading it. Aschuet1 (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * "COGNITIVE SURPLUS: Creativity and Generosity in a Connected Age" This article has some nice summary information and a bit of background on Shirky himself.


 * A Review of “Cognitive Surplus” Presents a review that says Shirky is successful in many of his assertions, though criticizes his technological determinism and suggests mixed feelings on his journalistic writing style.


 * "MEDIA SPOTLIGHT: Cognitive Surplus" Says Shirky is successful in advocating for the web but may be crossing the line in his criticism of television


 * "Cognitive Surplus: Creativity and Generosity in a Connected Age" describes Shirky as "calmly tranquil and philosophical". Also, like others in this list, presents the main point of the text as the replacement of television with internet. (Notably not, for example, the four types of sharing.)


 * "Cognitive Surplus: Creativity and Generosity in a Connected Age" This one does explicitly address the four types of sharing as an evaluative scale. It also presents Shirky as presenting new options for consumers and advertisers.


 * "The Stack: Cognitive Surplus by Clay Shirky" Starts off positive, distinguishing *Cognitive Surplus* from other supporters of the move to the web, but then criticizes for sameness throughout the book and distortion of reality. This may be one of the better sources to draw criticism from.


 * "Cognitive Surplus: Creativity and Generosity in a Connected Age by Clay Shirky" Gives a glowing review about how *CS* should be read for education about social media.


 * "The web's fusion of public and private media confuses us" Similar to the previous. It says *CS* is elucidatory. [I just did this as well in the positive mostly --Thenichi (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC) ]


 * "An Accelerated Grimace" gives an in-depth questioning of Shirky's cyber-utopianism [update, I have incorporated this into the negative reception --Thenichi (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC) ]

--Thenichi (talk) 01:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Cleaned up the links; hope that's okay. Aschuet1 (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Chapter Summaries
Here is where we will converse and discuss about the chapter summaries. Please leave your notes here. Gpecenka (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You all will find this useful to keep in mind--it's from Adam, the WikiEdu staff member assigned to our course: The summary section is traditionally assumed to be summarized from the work itself, meaning you do not need outside sources to verify your work. Inline citations from the work itself are only necessary when/if a direct quote is used, in which case the page number should also be included in the citation. Aschuet1 (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

How Engl 400 Would Like to Organize the Article
If you're an editor invested in this page, we wanted to let you know that our course, English 400, has taken on the article--to develop and polish it. At this point, we plan to organize the page in the following way. If you have any concerns, please let us know.

Lead
(student editors: Kahnah, Kate)


 * Kahnah changed the picture and updated publication information for the info box. Will be adding how the subtitle was changed when the book was turned over to paperback. We want to show individuals what the current book looks like so if they choose to purchase it, they will know exactly what to look for as this edition would most likely be the one on shelves at a book store. In the lead section, we are going to describe what the point of the book is and what Shirky is trying to prove throughout the text itself. Cognitive Surplus is a non-fiction piece written by Clay Shirky focused on describing the free time individuals have to engage with collaborative activities within new media. An end sentence will discuss how the point of the book is to commit free time to positive world transformations so long as individuals use their minds. Kbraun95 (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Background
(student editors: Heather, Corinne)

Summary (including chapter summaries and examples)
(student editors: Kristen, Carly, Bri, Gabriela, Layth)

Gin, Television, and Cognitive Surplus Shirky introduces the Gin Craze as a an older version of a modern day concern. Gin offered its consumers the ability to fall apart a little bit at a time. He relates this to how society today deals with free time in relation to technology. Since the Second World War, increases in GDP, educational attainment, and life span have forced industrialized world to grapple with something we'd never had to deal with on a national scale: free time. He claims that the sitcom, along with other technology and social media, has become the modern day Gin Graze. Something that makes today remarkable is that we can treat free time as a general social asset that can be harnessed for large, communally created projects. Society never knows what to do with a surplus at first (hence “surplus”). The "Milkshake Mistake" is the idea that it is a mistake to look at the meaning of or potential of something by looking at the history and original purpose of a product (such as drinking milkshakes for breakfast). Shirky says we do this when thinking about media. The use of technology is much less determined by the tool/medium itself; when we use a network, the most important asset we get is access to one another. Ushahidi was one of the first examples of a program in response to this surplus of free time being used for a greater good (cognitive surplus). It was a service developed to help citizens track outbreaks of ethnic violence in Kenya. It grew to a bigger and better at reporting over a wide geographical area as a result of cognitive surplus. It brought people together to carve out enough collective good-will from the community to create resources that no one could have imagined years ago. Along with good-will acts, people with a surplus of free time also engage in the use of creativity ( ICanHasCheezburger). Cognitive surplus, newly forced from previously disconnected island of time and talent, is just raw material. To get any value out of it, Shirky says, we have to make it mean something or be useful. We collectively aren't just a source of the surplus; we are also the people designing its use by our participation and by the things we expect of one another as we wrestle together with our new connectedness. Kcunnin1 (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC) Kcunnin1 (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

In the second chapter, Means, Shirky discusses the impact of media on the personal lives of civilians, companies, and governments. Throughout the text, Shirky references the 2008 Beef Revolts in South Korea and how they came about since they were led by K-pop fan girls. Shirky also referenced PickupPal and the tension between it and bus company Tentway-Wagar, who complained about the latter to the OHTB. Shirky discusses the publishing button and whether or not should exist since now anyone can publish. He references Naomi Wolf’s The Beauty Myth and Harvey Swados and uses them as part of his argument. He also brings up ICanHasCheezeBurger, YouTube, and AOL as well, all of which are platforms that anyone can use. Shirky compares all of this to the fifteenth century invention of the printing press and also lists other forms of life changing media, including photographic plates, CDs, radio, and television. --Carlynewton (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't forget to sign your contributions, Carly! Aschuet1 (talk) 16:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

In the third chapter Means, Shirky explains that the means are platforms, tools, or systems we use that allow us to connect, learn, and share. The combination of time, place, and people which enable us to share and take action, is the opportunity. Shirky discusses the types of motivations that a person who shares would consider. Intrinsic motivations, which Shirky summarizes as a need for 1) increased competence, 2) autonomy over what we do, 3) membership of a group who share our values and beliefs, 4) the sharing of things with that group. Then, extrinsic motivations, like reward and recognition or punishment for certain behaviors. These motivations could also be classified into personal and social motivations. Social motivations include membership and sharing, while personal motivations include competence and autonomy. With the evidence from Benkler and Nissenbaum, it is concluded that social motivations reinforce personal ones. With the tools of today, we see many new groups; most of them large, public, and amateur groups. The goal for these groups is more about scope rather than size. The use of this public access media is to reach audiences that are like the group. Sharers have always had the same interests-or motivations- it is the opportunity that has changed them, and the ability to connect, share, and learn easily. Gpecenka (talk) 15:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

In the fourth chapter, Opportunity, Shirky explores how means and motives alone cannot explain new uses for our cognitive surplus, explaining that we take the opportunities made available to us. He argues that we often discover unconventional routes to benefit society. Shirky cites examples such as the elderly adopting the Internet as new means for communication and skateboarders adapting drained swimming pools into skating ramps. The narrative about the drought-stricken pools proved an important point: the intended capabilities of something do not necessarily determine its functions. The unexpected benefits of these deviations from the norm are strongest when every member of a group acts in the interest of the community. On some psychological level, we always see ourselves as members of a group. This is why altruism exists in situations that provide no obvious benefit. As an example, Shirky discusses the Ultimatum game, in which two anonymous individuals are tasked with splitting a certain amount of money (ten in the example). The proposer gets to decide how they want the money to be split, such as nine-to-one or five-to-five. If the responder agrees to the proposal, each party gets their agreed sum. If the responder denies the proposal, neither party gets any money. Behavioral economics states that the proposer should always split the money in a way that heavily favors themselves and the responder should always accept, because a small amount of money is better than none at all. However, in practice, proposers tend to offer five-to-five or six-to-four deals, and responders tend to reject anything lower than a six-to-four deal. On some level, we always feel we are in a social situation and will either treat each other fairly or punish those who do not. According to Shirky, this is why what he describes as the public sector is so popular. Where the private sector is designed for companies to make a profit, the public sector is designed for the enrichment of society without any monetary gain. In the private sector, only those that are deemed to be the best are allowed to produce their goods and publish their thoughts, where in the public sector, digital networks connect people worldwide and give amateurs the opportunity to share their thoughts and work when they normally couldn’t. There are no gatekeepers on the Internet; innovation is actively encouraged and younger generations in a changing environment can find their voice there. Bstahl2 (talk) 04:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Condensed version-
 * In the fourth chapter, Opportunity, Shirky explores how means and motives alone cannot explain new uses for our cognitive surplus, explaining that we take the opportunities made available to us. He argues that we often discover unconventional routes to benefit society. Shirky cites examples such as the elderly adopting the Internet as new means for communication and skateboarders adapting drained swimming pools into skating ramps. The narrative about the drought-stricken pools proved an important point: the intended capabilities of something do not necessarily determine its functions. He goes on to discuss the Ultimatum game, in which a proposer and responder are given the task of splitting ten dollars. According to behavioral economics, proposers should always propose a split that heavily favors them and the responder should always accept it, because no matter how small their share is, there is still a gain. In practice, however, proposers tend to offer fair deals and responders tend to reject unfair proposals. On some level, we always feel we are in a social situation and will either treat each other fairly or punish those who do not. According to Shirky, this is why what he describes as the public sector is so popular; it is designed to enrich society without any monetary incentive. In the public sector, digital networks connect people worldwide and give amateurs the opportunity to share their thoughts and work when they normally couldn’t. There are no gatekeepers on the Internet; innovation is actively encouraged and younger generations in a changing environment can find their voice there. Bstahl2 (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The fifth chapter, "Culture" is broken up into four parts, Culture as a Coordinating Tool, The Economics of Sharing, College Professors and Brain Surgeons, and Patients Like Us. The first section of the chapter discusses the an experiment that appeared in a paper published in the Journal of Legal Studies, written by Uri Gneezy and Aldo Rustichini. The experiment demonstrates the backfiring of an attempt to regulate group collaboration; when attempting to do so by ascribing monetary values to people's time, a community will then begin to view people who provide services as the service itself rather than individuals. This emphasizes Shirky's point that group collaboration is essential to its prosperity and functionality. Another example he uses is The Invisible College, an example of collaboration that resulted in a monumental scientific advancements because of the sense of a shared purpose. Unlike the alchemists of their time, The Invisible College shared information with each other in order to further the field rather than claim individual advancements as their own. Later Shirky emphasizes the sense of belonging that is an intricate part of this group culture. In his brain surgeon analogy he discusses the values of a professional versus an amateur, and that while in the case of the brain surgeon people prefer the professional, this is not always the case. In cases such as food critics, people tend to prefer an outlet where ordinary people give their opinions, which he likens to a prostitute (professional at their craft) versus intimacy between partners, demonstrating that a sense of belonging is often held in a higher regard than skill. This sense of belonging opens up a new discussion with the example of patientslikeme.com in which patients of similar diseases can openly discuss their ailments and feel comfort in knowing that they are not the only ones experiencing it. Furthermore it allows researchers to collaborate with patients. Thus demonstrating that social media platforms can be used to enhance this nature of belonging in culture, but can also produce real civic value. --Lyehyawi (talk) 05:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

In the sixth chapter, Shirky outlines the variations in the forms of sharing and the types of value that result. The chapter title, Personal, Communal, Public, Civic, lists the types of values discussed. Personal value deals with the efforts of singular agents sharing ideas on a whim. Communal value is sharing in a small group that serves the interests of the group members collaborating. Public value deals with groups that share in order to produce projects that serve people outside of the group. Civic value is when groups collaborate on a project that serves to benefit society at large. Point being that value is determined on who is involved and the intended benefactors of their efforts and level of cooperation that is upheld amongst the group, and that ultimately cognitive surplus is the driving factor behind such efforts. The impact of the efforts can be as minuscule (personal) as sharing a selfie with the world, to hashtags that are created to garner large followings and support to the issues that can change the world. --Lyehyawi (talk) 05:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

In the seventh and final chapter, Looking for the Mouse, Shirky starts to work towards his conclusion of how his novel is a resource and how society may utilize it. He references the happenings of the post-World War II era and the resulting transformation that society endured. Shirky notes from Steve Weber’s book The Success of Open Source that lesser costs nor technical quality are worthy explanations for why someone would collaborate on an open source project. Shirky states that there is a paradox in revolution in which is the result of someone being able to change the future of a previously-existing society. He also references other media that revolutionized human conversation, stating that PLATO, a computer system that existed in the 1960s, was the ancestor of today’s electronic devices. He also shares with his readers that SixDegrees.com was the first social networking website, not Facebook and Friendster as everyone had previously thought. He makes several recommendations to his readers, some of them being that to know that it’s impractical to start complex, start small, ask questions, and note that behavior is in pursuit of opportunity. --Carlynewton (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Critical Reception

 * Not sure this is possible before class, but can this section get some additional organization? Maybe subheadings for Positive and Negative? Some paragraph breaks?

Aschuet1 (talk) 15:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

We intend to partition the section into positive and negative feedback via paragraphing. Here's a bulleted list of positive and negative things that can be later synthesized into the article.

I think the intro to this section can be improved. This is how it is introduced at this time: "The overall interpretation of Cognitive Surplus remains relatively ambiguous. While some praise Shirky's depiction and its effects on society, others have criticized his mental approach."

I wouldn't try to address an "overall interpretation" for one thing. Are there overarching criticisms that can be put in place of this? For example, the negative criticisms all seem to address the issue of negative uses of cognitive surplus. For example, Shirky discusses lolcats in the book, but this is a pretty innocuous example of negative or trite uses of cognitive surplus, especially considering the reality of cyber crimes, and other far more drastically negative uses. I would say that the main criticsm of Shirky, across the board, is that he is, in my words "enchanted" by idealism, and not realistic about the many possible ways we might waste this cognitive surplus, or worse, the many terrible ways it can, and IS being used for destructive and criminal activities, the global Jihadist movement being a prime example. On the positive side, Shirky is praised for explaining the potential opportunities we can harness. He shows us very effectively, that we can not only make better use of our time, but also, that technology enables us to do so in a way that maximizes our ability to share and communicate.Mschaef9 (talk) 23:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Martin, Can you clarify what "mental" is in "others have criticized his mental approach?" I don't understand that phrase. Aschuet1 (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Positive

 * Despite shortcomings, Cognitive Surplus remains overall a very well-written and generally well-informed contribution to our discussion about the social effects of social media. The academic research that shapes some of its assumptions and conclusions is well translated in everyday language. Sorin Adam Matei Bryceg11 (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "Clay Shirky is, for my money, the best and most helpful writer about the internet and society there is."
 * "There are revealing thoughts in every chapter and they're particularly important for people trying to do business on the internet, because they shed light on some fundamental motivations and forces that we often miss or misconstrue."
 * Davies says Shirky elucidated the personal/public media distinction "That explains a lot to me. It's obvious when you read it but failing to grasp the fused state of public/personal media is responsible for a lot of the things we get wrong online. We often take it to be a commercial, public media space (and we always seem to be looking for another small group of professionals out there to deal with) - but it's not just that. Things that are perfectly appropriate in public media just don't work in personal media. You wouldn't steam open people's letters and insert magazines ads, but that's sometimes how we seem to behave."
 * "Mr Shirky also explains why the internet seems so full of low-quality content and yet everyone likes it so much. It's that the satisfaction of creating and sharing is so powerful that if you give the people the opportunity, they'll do it - even if the results won't challenge the professionals." --Thenichi (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * "Clay Shirky is, for my money, the best and most helpful writer about the internet and society there is" Bryceg11 (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * "There are revealing thoughts in every chapter and they're particularly important for people trying to do business on the internet, because they shed light on some fundamental motivations and forces that we often miss or misconstrue." Bryceg11 (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * "Mr Shirky also explains why the internet seems so full of low-quality content and yet everyone likes it so much. It's that the satisfaction of creating and sharing is so powerful that if you give the people the opportunity, they'll do it - even if the results won't challenge the professionals." Bryceg11 (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * "It's a great book. Get a copy. It'd be a good use of your Cognitive Surplus." Bryceg11 (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Negative
straw-man claims gleefully culled from the venerable storehouse of old-media cliché is standard fare in digital evangelizing tracts such as Cognitive Surplus." --Thenichi (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC) (student editors: Martin, Nichi, Bryce)
 * Lehmann compares the contradictions Shirky makes in his argument about quality being democratized to "to hail a cascade of unrefereed digital content as a breakthrough in creativity and critical thought is roughly akin to greeting news of a massive national egg recall by laying off the country’s food inspectors."
 * "The invocation, and ritual immolation, of
 * "On one level, Shirky’s new book is just the latest, monotonous installment in the sturdy tradition of exuberant web yay- saying, from the overheated ’90s boom reveries of George Gilder (Telecosm) and Jon Katz (Virtuous Reality) to the more ambitious, but no less empirically challenged, late-aughts divinations of Wired magazine digiterati such as Chris Anderson (The Long Tail, Free)."
 * "It’s more than a little disorienting—and not a little obscene—in a society of increasingly desperate financial distress and joblessness, to be marched one more time by a beaming missionary through the key points of the New Economy catechism, which holds that the social achievements of the web are remaking the world as we know it remorselessly for the better, abolishing all the old distinctions not merely of intellectual and cultural quality but also of social class, national identity, government regulation and the fabric of public and private life itself."
 * "What’s striking is how Shirky pursues the utopian drift of the cottage industry in web apologetics to its logical conclusions—beginning with the collective time evoked in his book’s title. He estimates that this pooled global cache of time capital is a “buildup of well over a trillion hours of free time each year on the part of the world’s educated population.” Obviously, plenty of free time goes into all kinds of endeavors—from producing execrable reality television to composing crowdsourced fan fiction. To assign it all an aggregate value of potential hours of creative and generous activity is about as meaningful as computing one’s velocity on a bicycle as a fraction of the speed of light: it tells us nothing about either the public value or the opportunity cost of any given web-based activity."
 * Lehmann questions the intrinsic value of time spent online as a lot of time spent online may be used for things like gambling and porn.
 * There's nothing innately compassionate or generous about the web. For any good thing people do online, someone could also be doing something bad with the internet.
 * "A “cognitive surplus” has meaning only if one can ensure a baseline value toall that dreary inconvenient time we “while away” in our individual lives, and establishing that baseline is inherently a political question, one that might be better phrased as either “Surplus for what?” or “Whose surplus, white man?”"
 * Lehmann accuses Shirky of being myopic. Shirky says the worst thing on the web is LOLcats when actually there are some bad things like, for example, fake Obama birth certificates.
 * Shirky says you cannot communicate with society on the basis of a web search to which Lehmann responds, "The idea of society as a terminally unresponsive, nonconversant entity would certainly be news to the generations of labor and gender-equality advocates who persistently engaged the social order with demands for the ballot and the eight-hour workday. It would likewise ring strangely in the ears of the leaders of the civil rights movement, who used a concerted strategy of nonviolent protest as a means of addressing an abundance-obsessed white American public who couldn’t find the time to regard racial inequality as a pressing social concern. The explicit content of such protests, meanwhile, indicted that same white American public on the basis of the civic and political standards—or rather double standards—of equality and opportunity that fueled the nation’s chauvinist self-regard."
 * Shirky bases a lot of his conclusions of generosity on the Ultimatum Game experiment to which lehmann objects "The utility of the Ultimatum Game for a new marketenabled theory of human nature thins out considerably when one realizes that the players are bartering with unearned money." and if you "Consult virtually any news story following up on a lottery inner’s post-windfall life—to say nothing of the well-chronicled implosion of the past decade’s market in mortgagebacked securities—and you’ll get a quick education in how playing games with other people’s money can have a deranging effect on human behavior."* As for crowdsourcing being a “labor of love” (Shirky primly reminds us that the term “amateur” “derives from the Latin amare— ‘to love’”), the governing metaphor here wouldn’t seem to be digital sharecropping so much as the digital plantation. For all too transparent reasons of guilt sublimation, patrician apologists for antebellum slavery also insisted that their uncompensated workers loved their work, and likewise embraced their overseers as virtual family members. This is not, I should caution, to brand Shirky as a latter-day apologist for slavery but rather to note that it’s an exceptionally arrogant tic of privilege to tell one’s economic inferiors, online or off, what they do and do not love, and what the extra-material wellsprings of their motivation are supposed to be. To use an old-fashioned Enlightenment construct, it’s at minimum an intrusion into a digital contributor’s private life—even in the barrier-breaking world of Web 2.0 oversharing and friending. The just and proper rejoinder to any propagandist urging the virtues of uncompensated labor from an empyrean somewhere far above mere “society” is, “You try it, pal.”
 * Crowdsourcing is just cost-cutting, much akin to outsourcing.
 * Cognitive Surplus is already aging badly, with the WikiLeaks furor showing just how little web-based traffic in raw information, no matter how revelatory or embarrassing, has upended the lumbering agendas of the old nation-state on the global chessboard of realpolitik—a place where everything has a price, often measured in human lives. More than that, though, Shirky’s book inadvertently reminds us of the lesson we should have absorbed more fully with the 2000 collapse of the high-tech market: the utopian enthusiasms of our country’s cyber-elite exemplify not merely what the historian E.P. Thompson called “the enormous condescension of posterity” but also a dangerous species of economic and civic illiteracy."
 * The Western Cold War attitude has spawned a delusion about the power of information spreading to topple authoritarian regimes. This will not be the case in Eastern countries.
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thenichi (talk • contribs) 17:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

"A broader conclusion of the book is that converting “cognitive surplus” into social capital and collective action is the product of technologies fueled by the passion of affirming the individual need for autonomy and competence." -Sorin Matei Bryceg11 (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

his enthusiasm for social media and for the Internet produces at times overly drawn statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryceg11 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Works of Related Interest (potentially to be renamed Analysis)
(student editors: Petr, Kate)

There are two articles that I found online that engage with cognitive surplus in some kind of meaningful way. Of those two, one of them engages with the source directly and expands on it, the other plays around with some of the ideas. The first one can be found here, the second one can be found here. I don't know exactly how I'm going to use them, but I'm probably going to add them to the "critical reception" section and add the first one to the "further reading" section. HorseShark (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

“Spare Time + Social Media = A Brave New World?” -- an article that looks at CS and its attention to philanthropy and suggests application of CS final chpt as rubric for businesses Aschuet1 (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

"Online Social Networks and Learning"--references Shirky's concept of cognitive surplus as positive way to frame student engagement of online spaces. Full access only possible through library database. Aschuet1 (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

In addition, we will add some material to the Info Box. Aschuet1 (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Background
Here's a place to consolidate and organize any background information we find, and the three aspects of background that Corinne and I discussed (Corinne, I figured we could just put whatever source we find under the heading that best fits it) Heathercide (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Shirky himself

 * NYU brief on him - though obviously biased as NYU is always going to prop up their faculty, gives some good background on his areas of interest/research and talks a little about Cognitive Surplus. Could pull a few direct quotes from here, I think. Heathercide (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Shirky interview - just skimmed it, but could potentially articulate Shirky's views straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak. Heathercide (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Clay Shriky - Shirky's wiki page, pretty self-explanatory Heathercide (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Shirky's resume

Rough draft
Clay Shirky has long been interested in and published works concerning the Internet and its impact on society. He currently works at New York University, where he "has been making the case that the Internet is an inherently participatory and social medium".

Shirky has stated that he is interested in exploring "the changes in the way people collaborate" that are spurred on by technology and new media, and these changes are a large part of what Cognitive Surplus is devoted to examining. Topics that Shirky frequently writes about include Network Economics, Media and Community, Internet Globalization, and Open Source Software. Heathercide (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Heather, consider trimming back the first paragraph since Shirky does, in fact, have a bio on Wikipedia that can simply be linked to. The second paragraph is nice for how it directly relates to the topic of this article, which is the book, Cognitive Surplus. Aschuet1 (talk) 02:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Purpose/motivation
Interview with Shirky- this gives a bit of background to why he wrote c. surplus and his opinions on the internet as of the time the interview was done Wittc4321 (talk) 03:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)Corinne

Review- after looking through it, this gives a bit of insight into what could have been Shirky's purpose in writing c. surplus although I'm not quite certain but it's here in case Wittc4321 (talk) 03:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Shirky wrote this book a few years after its prequel, Here Comes Everybody, was published. Shirky was motivated to publish this book when "there are informed participants on both sides."By informed participants, Shirky is referring to those who are informed of social media and how important it is.The purpose of writing the book was to show "the possibilities of the Internet age and outlines the social obligations that come with it." Wittc4321 (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, Corinne, I was just looking over this and was confused by the second sentence about Shirky being motivated because of informed participants. I'm not really sure what that means, so could you clarify? We may need to clean that up a bit.  Heathercide (talk) 01:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Previous Works
So we can talk about this more if you want Corinne, but I added "previous works" to this section rather than have it included in the Shirky section, because most of his previous work has been on the internet and probably has had some influence on Cognitive Surplus.
 * Shirky's previous writings - covers everything that he's previously written from the man himself (also, I find it interesting/frustrating that he says on his website that if we need a bio, use his Wikipedia page--not exactly useful for this assignment!) Heathercide (talk) 00:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Here Comes Everybody review - review that as far as I can tell summarizes the main argument of the book; interestingly enough is linked with another book by another author, and is not the only place to do so, so potentially an interest for those working on related works. Heathercide (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably you're on this, but Wikipedia does have a page for Here Comes Everybody, so be sure to link to it. Aschuet1 (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Here Comes Everybody - adding the Wikipedia page for the book as per Professor Schuette's instruction Heathercide (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Shirky's prequel, Here Comes Everybody, was written in 2008 and relates to the topic of the Internet and organization of people. Shirky also notes that his book is about "what happens when people are given the tools to work together, without needing traditional organizational structure."

Shirky has also written several articles on the effects of the internet on society. These can be found on his page. Wittc4321 (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Works of Related Interest or naw?
We were looking to create a "Works of Related Interest" section on this page, where we take all of the academic responses to what Clay Shirky has said and put them into a section. Unfortunately, there weren't many academics building on Shirky's ideas, so we were left with very little to work with. I found this link, which is the only article I could find that directly responded to Shirky's ideas. If in a few years, there are more papers reacting to Shirky's ideas in this way, perhaps someone else could consider opening a "Works of Related Interest" section and outline what ideas have sprung from this book. As it stands, though, we're just putting this article in "Further Reading" and calling it a day. HorseShark (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)