EBlogger

(See this post for a little bit of context.)

Wikipedia and other “open content” initiatives are often lumped together with “open source” projects.

For instance, a Google search on “wikipedia open source” currently finds over 8 million hits. The expression “open source encyclopedia” currently finds more that 12 million. Wikipedians themselves are fond of drawing a comparision to open source projects, invoking Linus’s Law (also here), citing a benevolent dictator, or comparing the project to Linux or the Apache Web Server.

While the Wikipedia is certainly “open” for editing and is made available under a license derived from one used for open source software, it is managed differently than every every open source project on the planet, at least every one I’m aware of.

In an open source software project, one is free use the software, to obtain and examine the software’s source code, to modify it locally, and with various limitations, to redistribute it in binary or source form. One is encouraged, and in some circumstances required, to make his modifications available for others to use. But there is always someone, or a team of someones, who acts as the maintainer of the software. In the case of the Linux kernel, it was for a long time a single individual, and is now that individual and team of trusted lieutenants. In the case of the Apache Web Server, it is the “Project Management Committee”, a group, in principal, of the most meritorious contributors (who approve new members by unanimous vote). While there are many contributors to each project, and many proposed contributions, there is always someone—a maintainer, a gatekeeper, an authority, an expert, that reviews and approves each contribution.

While I’ve never followed the day-to-day Linux development, I can tell you that at the Apache Software Foundation there is an extensive, formal, and documented process to ensure that every contribution is carefully reviewed. The Foundation is legally accountable for certain types of copyright and patent infringement, and prides itself on the quality of the software it produces. Reviews, and the “web-of-trust” that determines who is qualified to do such a review, are an important part of the Apache development process. Presumably it is not a coincidence that this process produces the most popular web server in the world, and one that is remarkably secure, robust and stable.

The absence of gatekeepers is not a new complaint about Wikipedia. The obvious retort, of course, is that other contributors will review changes after the fact. This is sometimes known as a “commit then review” protocol in open source circles. But open source projects only allow commit-then-review contributions from a trusted few. The Wikipedia review process, by allowing arbitrary commit-then-review contributions, assumes (a) that someone is actually reviewing the contribution, and that (b) that someone is capable of performing an informed review of that contribution. It is possible for both of these assumptions to be correct. It is worth noting, however, thus far at least, these are unproven assumptions.

The presence of errors within the Wikipedia (and let’s be honest, the presence of more errors than virtually any “traditional” encyclopedia)–despite its impressive popularity–makes one wonder just how many eyeballs are needed before all bugs become shallow.

Update [11 Oct 2005 20:03 GMT]:

Based on comments here and elsewhere, I seem to have either riled or confused some folks, so perhaps I wasn’t quite clear. Let me restate the above as follows:

1) When people (including Wikipedia contributors) talk about Wikipedia they often appeal to a comparision to open source, and ascribe aspects/virtues of open source intitiatives to Wikipedia.

2) Wikipedia is organized differently than other “open” projects, in the sense that every open source project (as opposed to open content) maintains a gatekeeper in one form or another, while Wikipedia does not.

3) As a result, some the aspects ascribed to Wikipedia via the comparision in point #1 may not apply. Since (among many differences) they follow a different review process, things that are true about Linux or httpd may not be true about Wikipedia.

In other words, the essence of Wikipedia may be different than that of open source projects. (In fact, the essence of Wikipedia is much more like that of Ward’s Wiki than many would seem to like to admit.)