Don’t you get a sense that we are on the edge of some big changes? Whether it is the PC market, the consumer electronics market, the server market — anyone notice Sun is actually getting stronger? — the network market, or the world in general, we seem to be seeing a lot of change all of a sudden. Clearly, we can’t talk about all of that this week, but we can chat about a few things. Wikipedia may have recently provided us with the strongest example yet of a huge misconception surrounding open source. Bet I have your attention now.
No name calling here. But it is interesting how Rob can talk of apples and then compare them to oranges. Let's break this down a bit. . On the one hand we have Wikipedia. Anyone who thought this was going to be a collection of empirical, impartial, independent data needs to have their head examined. It is just like any other randomly edited content site. Slashdot and K5 are just as good, if not better, than Wikipedia. Why is it full of questionable data? Because you don't need any knowledge or experience to edit it. If you can type (even hunt'n'peck) you are able to contribute. Plus there is no definitive test to show that the work is actually correct. Content is posted and that's it. . On the other had there is open source. The open source model is as much like Wikipedia as a cat is to a spaceship. In order to contribute to an open source product you MUST have some expertise in coding. You need skills. And in the end, there is an impartial, empirical, definitive test to prove the quality of the work. If the code doesn't run it's bad code and is not used. It's not like Wikipedia where others can stomp all over your patches and keep you from getting them included. If the code works, it works. Period. . Yes, Wikipedia is full of crap. But the open source development model is about as similar to it as, well, cats and spaceships.
Wikipedia does not discredit Open Source. There could be liars everywhere. Even top managers of big companies could be lairs. And the consequence of one top manager lying with power of millions of bucks for PR massage could be disaster while one lying editor in Wikipedia causes that somebody else will step in. Open Source means for me communication with people who want to say or share something. PR push from big companies does not mean to say something, to provide something. PR massage from big companies forces just to spend money.
The problem with your argument connecting open source and wikipedia is the implication that every other source of information or software is perfect. It isn't and the research shows that there are comparable error rates in more formally accepted encyclopaedias and the BSOD is a reminder of failings by others. Likewise, are you suggesting there aren't imposters that work in every field of human endeavour? Perhaps even journalists? The real misconception is best explained by W. Edwards Deming ..."In God we trust. All others bring data".
Loading ...
Wikipedia Discredits Open Source, Data Tsunami and the Lenovo Laptop Phone
Posted by: Rob Enderle March 12, 2007 04:00 AMDon’t you get a sense that we are on the edge of some big changes? Whether it is the PC market, the consumer electronics market, the server market — anyone notice Sun is actually getting stronger? — the network market, or the world in general, we seem to be seeing a lot of change all of a sudden. Clearly, we can’t talk about all of that this week, but we can chat about a few things. Wikipedia may have recently provided us with the strongest example yet of a huge misconception surrounding open source. Bet I have your attention now.
.
On the one hand we have Wikipedia. Anyone who thought this was going to be a collection of empirical, impartial, independent data needs to have their head examined. It is just like any other randomly edited content site. Slashdot and K5 are just as good, if not better, than Wikipedia. Why is it full of questionable data? Because you don't need any knowledge or experience to edit it. If you can type (even hunt'n'peck) you are able to contribute. Plus there is no definitive test to show that the work is actually correct. Content is posted and that's it.
.
On the other had there is open source. The open source model is as much like Wikipedia as a cat is to a spaceship. In order to contribute to an open source product you MUST have some expertise in coding. You need skills. And in the end, there is an impartial, empirical, definitive test to prove the quality of the work. If the code doesn't run it's bad code and is not used. It's not like Wikipedia where others can stomp all over your patches and keep you from getting them included. If the code works, it works. Period.
.
Yes, Wikipedia is full of crap. But the open source development model is about as similar to it as, well, cats and spaceships.