[Foundation-l] In defence of Google

[Ray Saintonge]

Gerard Meijssen wrote:

> The open content movement is not living in a vacuum. When you insists on
>
>everybody to behave like you would see the world and be overly negative 
>about everyone that is not like that, you must live in a frustrating 
>world. Google did and does a world of good. It is not an open source 
>organisation but it has played a crucial role in making us what we are. 
>It has contributed significantly to Open Source projects. One of their 
>best policies is that they create their software in such a way that you 
>can move away from Google if you so choose. If you want to reduce it to 
>only "they did it for their own reason" fine, but you do not convince me.
>
>...
>
>I started this thread because to me it is essential to understand who 
>our friends are. It is important to understand with whom we share 
>values. It is important to understand for whom Open Content and Open 
>Source can become more relevant and why. By engaging our friends and our 
>could be friends, it is possible to increase the relevancy of what we 
>do. We increase the potential for the WMF to realise its aims. It is sad 
>that some choose to have such a narrow negative view on the world that 
>they destroy opportunities. It is a fact of life that they are part of 
>our community and it is for that reason that I feel it is necessary to 
>repeat; Google has been good to us.
>
As critical as I may be of capitalism I have to agree with the main 
thrust of Gerard's comments.  Oddly enough these comments are closely 
related to my criticisms of those who wanted to import all of 
Northwestern University's database of African maps just because we 
could.  One can never expect that enforceable rules can be written to 
deal with situation.  It is more often a matter of having the vision of 
a wider view.

We have already done very well in integrating the efforts of editors 
with diametrically opposed and severely conflicting opinions into 
articles that progressively approach NPOV.  There is still much more to 
do, but at least we are heading in the right direction.  Having advanced 
on this front internally, we also need to do so externally.  Wikipedia 
is a part of an external community just as much as its editors are a 
part of an internal community.  Open Access will bring about its own 
collapse unless the members of that club learn to work collaboratively. 
As long as some members of the club insist on maximizing their profits 
to extreme levels without regard to the effects of such a strategy, and 
some others remain dedicated to having everything free-as-in-beer 
confrontation is inevitable.  Henry Ford had enough vision to see that 
if the workers could not buy his cars his business would not be profitable.

We also need to be ever conscious that we are in uncharted business 
territory.  Wikipedia may very well be a top-ten website, but it is also 
unique in being the only non-profit in that club.  That's an awesome 
place.  There are many people to whom the notion that a nonprofit could 
do so well is incomprehensible.  We can't be throwing stones at those 
who could be our major collaborators, and we need to allow room for 
relatively smaller players to do their thing.

Ec