Will The Real Nupedia Please Stand Up?

jwales writes: "There was a bit of confusion recently regarding the announcement of a 'gnupedia' project. There already exists a free encyclopedia project, with all code GPL'd and all content FDL'd, and that project is Nupedia. I have written an article explaining what happened. Basically, RMS got confused." Clear as mud.

Comments

Good!

[KjetilK]

I'm glad to see this sorted out. I signed up with nupedia a few weeks ago, and while I'm usually following RMS a long way in his ideas, it looked as if he was grabbing the idea.

Now, the Nupedia folks seem to have given the encyclopedia idea far more thought than RMS. What RMS seemed to be announcing was little more than the web as we know it now plus a bit of resource description on top, but far from the Semantic Web of TimBL.

The Nupedia folks have really thought carefully about formal peer review, which is a very important feature of a real encyclopedia, and with the FDL, it's very promising.

Nupedia says: Yes! The more the merrier!

[jwales]

At Nupedia, we don't have any problem with competition. Particularly so long as everyone uses the FDL, the projects will remain compatible, so that article sharing can take place, etc.

Our complaint was that (1) RMS had offered to make an announcement with us, (2) in our discussions of our switch to the FDL, RMS never told us about Hector's project, and (3) we woke up one morning to find an announcement of a competing project with almost the exact same name and mission!

Fortunately, as I have said, sanity is prevailing. RMS apologized for his mistake, and we're happy with that.

And were on /., which will really help us with what we need most -- exposure.

Re:And whom is vetting the authors and articles?

[DunLurkin]

Why do you think that there are "controls" on existing encylopedias? They are the products of companies and organizations who are seeking profits and/or the propagation of their own memes. The review process, if any, is not open to the general public or even to a wide selection of experts in the appropriate fields. Opposing viewpoints are often not sought out or represented in the articles. Are we supposed to trust them just because they are are printed on dead trees with gilt edges and genuine-fake-leather covers?

When books were hand-transcribed, the scribes added their own "marginalia" to clarify, endorse, expand, or object to the views of the original author. This practice was lost with the advent of printing (perhaps the only real downside to printing). Books became a "top down", one way communication medium with an implied promise of "if it's in print, it must be true".

This type of elitism has lead to the virtually unopposed spread of untruths ranging from the trivial (dates and details of events that are widely accepted, but demonstrably false by recourse to primary sources) to the tragic (the use of falsified history and anthropology to justify genocide).

In the case of Nupedia, the articles are at least offered for online peer review. Contribute your services - help MAKE it accurate.

Oops... Although the real world would be similar.

[alexhmit01]

Grin, in the corporate world, the same thing would have likely happened, probably with a $1 settlement. Given the relationship between Nupedia and FSF, there normally would have been an NDA, so "gnupedia" would have been in violation. The main difference here is than FSF is small enough that rms should know what is going on (especially if he is doing both items).

Ooops, Brain Fart, an apology, and (probably?) an oops post on GNU.org at some point. At the very least, if gnupedia.(com|org|net) was acquired, they should point to nupedia.

In the real world, this stuff happens. When MS does the NDA violation, they usually pay a large sum (to the little company, not to MS) to either buy the company or settle so the company can launch a new business idea. When other companies do it, they either back down (and pay $1 + legal fees), or they fight and lose badly.

Now, if you don't use an NDA and give details, well, what can you do.

Now, as Nupedia is wide open, NDA isn't quite the perfect analogy. A non-compete would be, but contracts to divide the market are not looked on favorably by the anti-trust laws.

Hmm, enough ramblings, but I wonder, could a Free Software agreement not to compete be seen as anti-trust? It wouldn't really prevent "competition" as anyone can take the work for free... is it market dumping? Hmm... IP applies artificial scarcity to force IP based products to follow normal microeconomics (albeit with a monopoly/oligopoly), how do you reconcile this with Free Software...

Hmm...