Yes, please, wisdom of the masses is exactly what we need when patenting is in question.
On the internet, with its anonymity, the so called "wisdom of the experts" is nothing but a meaning. This meaning could belong to Generic Ted, or Bill Gates. Certainly Generic Ted won't unleash his meanings to every patent, but to a subjective share. Bill only registered because he wanted to say that Microsoft should be allowed to patent the right-mouse-click.
If the answer to that problem is moderating, then why bother ask for the masses wisdom in the first place?
You can't let anyone, but a democratic selected group of people (preferebly wizards) have the right to change the outcome of these important issues.
This all boils down to fear. Fear of making a change in the infrastructure. In every sector of the government, it's up to the IT dept. what system is used. Not the administration or central regulations. They trust the IT dept. with this decision. As long as it "works".
If all IT depts. were competent and fearless like those pioneers running Indiana Schools, all would probably move away from Microsoft products.
Arguments like "but we need Microsoft products to run program x", is just plain fear. It should be "but you (developers) need to make this program run on x".
Slashdot Mirror
This will demand a rewrite of that article on Wikipedia.
Also, I will have to reevaluate the Flipper, 63' edition.
Yes, please, wisdom of the masses is exactly what we need when patenting is in question.
On the internet, with its anonymity, the so called "wisdom of the experts" is nothing but a meaning. This meaning could belong to Generic Ted, or Bill Gates. Certainly Generic Ted won't unleash his meanings to every patent, but to a subjective share. Bill only registered because he wanted to say that Microsoft should be allowed to patent the
right-mouse-click.
If the answer to that problem is moderating, then why bother ask for the masses wisdom in the first place?
You can't let anyone, but a democratic selected group of people (preferebly wizards) have the right to change the outcome of these important issues.
This all boils down to fear. Fear of making a change in the infrastructure. In every sector of the government, it's up to the IT dept. what system is used. Not the administration or central regulations. They trust the IT dept. with this decision. As long as it "works". If all IT depts. were competent and fearless like those pioneers running Indiana Schools, all would probably move away from Microsoft products. Arguments like "but we need Microsoft products to run program x", is just plain fear. It should be "but you (developers) need to make this program run on x".