Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Unusual Open Source

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the business-action-penguin-folk dept.

Dumitru Erhan writes "The Economist has a special report on open-source. It analyzes the way open-source projects succeed and finds that a rigid, business-like organizational structure is of vital importance to the quality of the final product. It cites Firefox, MySQL and (more recently) Wikipedia as examples of projects that do not simply allow anarchy to rein in, but which have 'real checks and balances, and real leadership taking place'. There is also a discussion of open-source methods being applied to non-software projects." From the article: "Constant self-policing is required to ensure its quality. This lesson was brought home to Wikipedia last December, after a former American newspaper editor lambasted it for an entry about himself that had been written by a prankster. His denunciations spoke for many, who question how something built by the wisdom of crowds can become anything other than mob rule."

5 of 262 comments (clear)

  1. Summary gets anarchism wrong by HooliganIntellectual · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "It cites Firefox, MySQL and (more recently) Wikipedia as examples of projects that do not simply allow anarchy to rein in..."

    As an anarchist geek, let me point out that this is a wrong use of the word "anarchy." Anarchism is a political philosophy that is FOR organization. Many people have described Wikipedia as an example of "anarchism in action" and they aren't misusing the word instead of using "chaos." The free software/open source (FOSS) movement is another example of anarchism in action and includes many actual anarchists working on various projects.

    Find out more about anarchism at http://www.infoshop.org/ (where half of the visitors are using Firefox and other open source browsers)

  2. What never made sense to me by K-Man · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If the guy was so offended, why didn't he just edit the Wikipedia entry to fix the mistakes?

    --
    ---- "If we have to go on with these damned quantum jumps, then I'm sorry that I ever got involved" - Erwin Schrodinger
  3. Anarchy by LeapingQuince · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It is unfortunate that the term anarchy has a dual meaning - the most common being "disorder". A more historical meaning is that of "without authority", which seems to be what open source is all about - nobody telling anybody else what to do.

    Open source projects are the model of anarchist principles - people getting together, contributing when they want to, and promoting the common good. Even Wikipedia knows that.

  4. Re:Check out Groklaw by tabdelgawad · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't understand Groklaw's beef. She (PJ) was asked two questions. Her first answer was one of the main points of the article: hierarchy is an integral part of successful open source development. Her second answer was a dodge: "You think Wikipedia is bad? The MSM is worse!". As for the factual inaccuracies, what exactly were they? The fact that the author didn't get the "groklaw-approved" exact wording right for telling us SCO is suing IBM, DaimlerChrysler and Autozone? Give me a break.

    Perhaps I'm biased against Groklaw. Sometimes I can't take the world-weary, sighing, 'know all the answers', 'the rest of the world is idiotic' tone of the postings there. I'm sure I'll be punished accordingly by groklaw fans with mod points, but what use is good Karma if you can't cash it in once in a while? :)

    --
    Imposing Libertarian views on everyone online since 1992.
  5. Re:Sounds like... by Ragica · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Couple of potential problems with this point of view.
    • Charismatic manipulators (of marginal intelligence can sometimes use various means of manipulating large numbers of morons in ways that most more thoughtful persons would not stoop to. (This is leaving even more complex issues of proportional representation, and other weirdness elements of elections aside.)
    • "using the history page" requires the target being defamed to know that they have a wikipedia entry. Anyone can go and add an entry about you and you may not know for some time. Someone may cunningly edit your entry, and you may not know for some time.
    • most viewers won't use the history page, even if they did realise its purpose, because it's an extra click. Kind of like microsoft knowing almost everyone is going to use IE even though it sucks ass, just because it's what's in front of them.
    This being said, I love Wikipedia, and use it several times a week. It's a great resource. But it does have some pretty big inherent problems due to its nature. No use in glossing over that fact.