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. :)