http://www.apcmag.com/7924/the_future_of_the_linux_kernel_and_what_it_tells_...
Applying lesson #4 will doubtless be interesting.
- d.
A very nice article, although it doesn't provide any new insights that (i at least) haven't thought of before, except for #4. It might be a good idea (i'm not sure if it hasn't been done before) to research which (large) corporations are using Mediawiki software already and have anyone employed on making new extensions or changes to the core, and seeing if they might be interested on employing someone full-time to work on Mediawiki and give back code to the main trunk.
-- Hay / Husky
On Jan 30, 2008 5:05 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.apcmag.com/7924/the_future_of_the_linux_kernel_and_what_it_tells_...
Applying lesson #4 will doubtless be interesting.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 30/01/2008, Husky huskyr@gmail.com wrote:
A very nice article, although it doesn't provide any new insights that (i at least) haven't thought of before, except for #4. It might be a good idea (i'm not sure if it hasn't been done before) to research which (large) corporations are using Mediawiki software already and have anyone employed on making new extensions or changes to the core, and seeing if they might be interested on employing someone full-time to work on Mediawiki and give back code to the main trunk.
Corporate sponsorship of MediaWiki is quite different to corporate sponsorship of Wikipedia. The former ought to work well, for the same reasons it works well for the Linux kernel. The latter, however, has very different problems because of the market we're in - we deal with information and it's important we keep that information neutral. There is no real concept of neutrality for software, as long as the software does what it's intended to do, it's fine, you don't need to worry about companies advertising their products by adding bias patches to Linux.
Two other comments I would make:
About #1: The quote "check the discussion page for any controversial article and it will tend be an argument between half-a-dozen highly passionate people", while strictly speaking true, is irrelevant. He seems to miss the fact that it's a different half-a-dozen highly passionate people on each page. Individual parts of a project are always going to be done by individuals, that's obvious. It's the central organisation that mustn't rely on individuals.
About #4: Since when has 17% been a majority?
On Jan 30, 2008 9:29 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/01/2008, Husky huskyr@gmail.com wrote:
A very nice article, although it doesn't provide any new insights that (i at least) haven't thought of before, except for #4. It might be a good idea (i'm not sure if it hasn't been done before) to research which (large) corporations are using Mediawiki software already and have anyone employed on making new extensions or changes to the core, and seeing if they might be interested on employing someone full-time to work on Mediawiki and give back code to the main trunk.
Corporate sponsorship of MediaWiki is quite different to corporate sponsorship of Wikipedia. The former ought to work well, for the same reasons it works well for the Linux kernel. The latter, however, has very different problems because of the market we're in - we deal with information and it's important we keep that information neutral. There is no real concept of neutrality for software, as long as the software does what it's intended to do, it's fine, you don't need to worry about companies advertising their products by adding bias patches to Linux.
Two other comments I would make:
About #1: The quote "check the discussion page for any controversial article and it will tend be an argument between half-a-dozen highly passionate people", while strictly speaking true, is irrelevant. He seems to miss the fact that it's a different half-a-dozen highly passionate people on each page. Individual parts of a project are always going to be done by individuals, that's obvious. It's the central organisation that mustn't rely on individuals.
About #4: Since when has 17% been a majority?
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I think they mean "largest part" rather than "majority", but "majority" is often (if inappropriately) used in that particular sense. I agree though, it's fine for Linux to accept corporate contributions, because no one's going to change the kernel to be more "friendly" toward a donor, nor could any such donor really ask. (And even if X Company has a suggestion for how the kernel can work more easily with Y Product from them, great!) Wikipedia has other considerations, such as NPOV, and just as importantly, the -appearance- of NPOV. If someone is slipping us cash to advertise, we cannot maintain any pretense that we can have a neutral article on them.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org