Slashdot Mirror
GNUPedia Project Starting
Hector Facundo Arena writes: "The Free Universal Encyclopedia and Learning Resource (GNUPedia) Web page is online today. GNUPedia is a project for the development of a free encyclopedia. You can read more in the Richard Stallman's project announcement document. We invite you to participate in the project and join the mailing lists"
Richard is famous for his lack of tact, but come on, GNUpedia? Why choose this name when the Nupedia project (same concept -- free online encyclopeida) exists and is already very well established? This seems like either (1) a blatent attempt to confuse would-be users and steal audience through confusion, (2) a remarkable failure to do the required homework before starting a project (remarkable because Richard is supposedly so bright), or (3) just plain insensitivity. It's enough to drive any feeling, thinking person as far away from GNU as possible. Geesh...
--------
meta4
dw2-dont-spam-me-@opencontent.org
http://davidwiley.com/
--
TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
screams for something more than html. are there any existing xml dtd's or schemas for organising such information?
peterrenshaw ~ Another Scrappy Startup
It's sure to have much more updated and technically accurate than any print encyclopedia I've personally seen, but the main point of an encyclopedia (IMO) is to concentrate knowledge of any given field of knowledge and give a solid, accurate portrayal. Sure, there can be many different points of view presented, but ultimately, it needs to wrap up conclusions and points in at least *some* manner. Ever seen a Usenet thread do this successfully?
*Pictures Johnny 11th grader trying to write a HS paper with this encyclopedia, with every paragraph starting like this: "However, Professor John Doe believes that...", "Dr. Paul Denton disagrees...", "Laura Croft, PHD, flamed Paul, however, and..." *
Anyhow, this is a really cool experiment.
Right. No, your other right. No, the other other right.
No person, or group of them, is completely unbiased. An editorial board is no exception. Since whether or not something is 'biased' is really based on the viewer's perspective, what may seem unbiased to you may seem biased to me. So that's not a reasonable argument for calling this 'not a real' encyclopedia.
Perhaps what you meant is that their particular bias is somewhat less mainstream than that of the typical suit-and-tie editorial board. Probably true. I'm in agreement that RMS is a nut. But does that make the information any less valid? Personally, I think that the more different views of the same information we have, the better.
Yes, this is the type of encyclopedia that I want. Or, rather, it's one of them.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
I hate to see the entries for Microsoft, Bill Gates, etc etc. Or intellectual property. Music Industry. Movie Industry...
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
Perhaps someone could write an American English to Brittish English translator.
Maybe they will add one to Babelfish, so that you can type in "I was smoking a cigarrette while pushing the pram" and get back "I was burning a fag at the prom"
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Allowing links to non-GPL'd sites would not dilute the freedom of the encyclopedia. Look, everybody knows that when they surf someone's web site, there may be outgoing links. I'm sure that I can start on my local PTA's web site and, within six clicks, wind up on a page about goat sex. Does that mean the PTA shouldn't have had outward links? Of course not. People can normally tell when they've left one site and entered another. As long as every page on GNUpedia had some kind of consistent logo or banner, this wouldn't be an issue. The only reason for trying to pretend it's an issue is because RMS thinks it's his destiny to make everybody else do what he wants.
This policy has all the same ridiculous problems as the DeCSS ruling -- prohibiting people from linking is just plain stupid, and they'll just work around it. The announcement says:
- If a page on the web covers subject matter that ought to be in the encyclopedia or the course library, but its license is too restricted to qualify, we must not make links to it from encyclopedia articles or from courses.
In other words, an article on C# can't contain a link to MS's pages about C#? How pathetic!BTW, who's going to enforce this rule, and who's going to decide what sites are not free enough to link to ("too restricted to qualify"), or what sites "ought to be in the encyclopedia"? I suppose RMS will make pronouncements, and then there will be endless arguing with people who disagree with him, since there is supposed to be no central control.
The Assayer - free-information book reviews
Find free books.
# man hallway
HALL(1)   House General Rooms Manual   HALL(1)
NAME
SYNOPSIS
DESCRIPTION
DIAGNOSTICS
BUGS
SEE ALSO
HISTORY
1st Snowfox Home Distribution October 13, 1999
#
Articles, and especially courses, will often include software--for example, to display a simulation of a chemical reaction, or teach you how often to stir a sauce so it won't burn. To ensure that the encyclopedia is indeed free, all software included in articles and courses should meet the criteria of free software (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html) and open source software (http://www.opensource.org).
</i>
<p>
Good for RMS, not launching into a rant about Free Software vs. open source software, but instead embracing both philosophies as acceptable in this case. Since every time he gest sidetracked, he gets massively criticized, let's see a massive groundswell of positive feedback this time...
Can your IM do this?
In some ways this shows some promise for GNUPedia -- the real content is already coming from distributed individuals, usually people for whom writing is not a profession. OTOH, I think it shows the weakness as well -- what makes a bunch of articles an encyclopedia is the editorial influence. The web already has lots of articles, but it doesn't have the editorial influence.
Most of what the editors do is bitch at the contributors who are late submitting their articles. This is because an encyclopedia that covers 90% of the necessary material is a bad encyclopedia. Who's going to do the bitching for GNUPedia? And how would they possibly have any authority to bitch? They aren't paying anyone anything...
I think GNUPedia should place more emphasis on compiling and cataloging. Most of the content already exists. That's what OpenDirectory is all about... that's what the web is all about... and a lot of the content is from people who wouldn't mind giving up control, because they aren't receiving anything in return anyway. A little flattery could go a long way...
If already-existing resources were compiled and editted, released under a copyleft-license, GNUPedia could really be successful. But as it seems stated, it feels like GNUPedia is just a rephrasing of what the web already is.
Also, GNUPedia or some subset needs some exclusiveness. I think a lot of people who contribute to these encyclopedias do it because in a small way it makes them a published author. In academia the greatest rewards are things you can say about yourself, not things you have. If GNUPedia can make people rightfully proud of being contributors, then it can definately succede.
Real encyclopedias are controlled by editorial boards that provide unbiased, fair and reasonable content. Judging from slashdot, and RMS' personal opinions I would conclude that is encyclodepia would be quite biased. In order to be of any use, it will have to be unbiased. If stallman is any judge of why people write free software, contributors will not want to write for it unless they can influence others opinions. We can see this right on the page with the comment about the "GNU system", sometimes called linux.
Is this really the type of encyclopedia that you would want?
But the real question is, whatever happened to the Interpaedia? Remember, the web-based, user-written, free encyclopaedia? Sound familiar? It's what RMS is proposing, and it's what failed before. What is different this time? The only links I could find to the Interpaedia were a gopher link and an old broken link to an archived discussion.