[WikiEN-l] Re: Poll on templates

[Karl A. Krueger]

On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 10:27:07AM -0400, Michael Turley wrote:
> Personally, I couldn't care any less about reusers.  The existence of
> reusers is simply a byproduct of the license of the project.  I don't
> think we should go out of our way to either accomodate or
> inconvenience them in any way.  They get exactly zero weight my
> decisions.

Thoroughly agreed.

Open-source / free-content projects seem to fall into two categories
along these lines:  those whose direct contributors and consumers are
end-users, and those whose direct contributors and consumers are
redistributors.

Take the Linux kernel for instance.  Most people who use Linux do not
get their kernel directly from the kernel developers.  They get it from
a redistributor -- Red Hat, SuSE, Debian, Ubuntu, or the like.  At the
same time, much of the kernel development is done by people working for
redistributors or resellers -- not just companies like Red Hat, but
companies like IBM.

Nor is this a coincidence:  most end-users of Linux are not *able* to
use the Linux kernel in the form produced by the developers.  They lack
the necessary technical skills and time, to say nothing of the desire,
to deal with raw kernel source.  Redistributors provide an essential
service by taking the raw kernel source and packaging it (along with a
great deal of other software) in such a way that end-users can make use
of it.


Wikipedia, in contrast, does not enjoy this kind of relationship with
redistributors.

First off, there are only a tiny number of *legitimate* redistributors,
such as Wikinfo.  The vast majority of redistribution of Wikipedia
content is illegal and illegitimate -- Web sites which copy Wikipedia
content without attribution, using our high-quality writing to place
high on search engines, score advertisement revenue, and push spyware.
We have no interest whatsoever in helping people violate our rights.

Second, redistributors' contribution to the project is quite small by
comparison with the contribution of end-users.  (Sorry, Fred.)  Thus, in
any (rare!) case where the interests of end-users vie against the
interests of redistributors, we need to consider that Wikipedia gets
vastly more benefit from end-users than from redistributors.

Third, redistributors are not essential to the project, in the manner
that Linux redistributors are.  End-users can (and do!) use Wikipedia
just as easily as they can use a redistributor.  Indeed, Wikipedia has
substantial benefits over most (illegal) redistributors:  it's legal;
it's more up-to-date; it doesn't run ads; it doesn't reformat the
articles in brain-dead ways.


> I only care about the readers and editors.  What is useful to the
> readers is the same thing that is useful to the editors.

There's a corollary here:  anyone who claims to be speaking "for the
readers" (as _opposed_ to editors) is likely talking out his hat.  We've
seen this a number of times -- folks who purport that the interests of
readers and those of editors are somehow at odds with one another, and
that editors should change their ways in order to benefit the "silent
majority" of readers.

But that's just "the lurkers support me in email" all over again.  :)

-- 
Karl A. Krueger <kkrueger at whoi.edu>