On 8/7/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/7/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
What would you say is the most striking difference? I'd say it's a close tie between free as in open source and open as in...wiki. In most news reports I've heard the first part is less emphasized though.
I would say it's that articles are written and published by unpaid volunteers in real-time. Our flat "management structure" (ie, anarchy) certainly plays a part, but it's less central to defining us, imho.
And that makes me think of Nupedia, which I'd say was closer to Encyclopedia Britannica than it was to Wikipedia. Wikipedia uses a bazaar style of development as opposed to a cathedral style, and I think that's incredibly important. Of course, that doesn't mean you or I are wrong, it's just a different way of looking at things.
Interestingly, looking at [[The Cathedral and the Bazaar]], apparently the comparison in that book was between different "open source" projects. So I guess calling the style "open source" is incorrect, though I think I do understand what the author meant by it.
Looking at the rest of the snippet though, I see "Open source refers to both a model of software development and an ideology of intellectual property." There again are those two things which I think are the most striking difference(s) in Wikipedia.
I don't think most Wikipedians are open source fanatics. And I don't think Wikipedia being "closed source" (say there were no db dumps, contributors retained full copyright over contributions, and there was no GFDL in play) would radically alter anything. It would reduce the motivation for many contributors, but it would not actively interfere with getting the job done.
You might be right. I certainly emphasize the role of the "free as in freedom" aspect of Wikipedia more than many others. Personally I think some other project such as the abandoned Gnupedia one would have outshadowed Wikipedia if it hadn't adopted a free license, but that might very well be overly idealistic of me.
Anthony