[WikiEN-l] In 2006, Wikipedia started to exist (according to the world of Britannica)

[Anthony]

On 8/7/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/7/06, Anthony <wikilegal at 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