Anyway, in trying to clarify your point, you now add, “the essence of Wikipedia is much more like that of Ward’s Wiki than many would seem to like to admit.” I’m puzzled by the implied allegation that we’re trying to deny or downplay this heritage, nor do I see why it would be something to be embarrassed about.

Discussions and media coverage of Wikipedia often provide historical background, including Ward’s Wiki and the origins of the wiki concept, so if this is some dark mystery, it’s being hidden in plain sight. While Ward’s Wiki and Wikipedia now have important differences in wiki terms, obviously some similarities remain. However, since Wikipedia is for most people their first introduction to wikis, additional reference points are usually necessary. These naturally tend toward open source software and principles like Linus’s law. While the concepts may not translate exactly, I think they’re still useful in understanding Wikipedia.

After all, I can collect a series of sentencens from your postings and replies you should be able to agree to:

# This posting is not about open source, it’s about development of text (as in source code or content).
# Apache, Linux and the OSS projects you are aware of seem to be using different techniques to maintain the source code.
# Effects that arise from a certain way of developing text/code may not arise if you use a different or another way of text/code.

You know, a lot of companies fell into the illusion of a giant workforce that can be used in the own plan for free if you simply release the source code under a free license. That’s how Mozilla and OpenOffice.org started. For years, Mozilla development was sluggish. Even more, for a very long time, most of the OOo developers were simply sun employees (I wonder how the ratio has changed since then). Maybe they fell victim to the same misconception you did, that there are some pseudoDarwinian and pseudomiracolous powers behind this “open source” thing that turn water into wine and wood into gold, simply if you call it open or free.

Open source projects that are no spin-off from a commercial product but from a group of intelligent people working in their free time heavily rely on certain factors that are no requirements in the license, such as a positive social climate or a project leader who is able to inspire people more than the superior in your for-money-job does.

I see that your original entry in this blog is still work in progress. A little change here and there and some annexes .o( claim-then-review-protocoll anyone? ) and this posting might gain more plausibility.

While you cite ESR without attribution, I deeply miss any mention of a Bazaar in your posting.

In any event, Wikipedia does contain errors. But no web site, encyclopedia, or other resource is error-free. And when I find an error on Wikipedia, I can fix it within seconds. When I find an error on Brittanica, there’s little that I can do, save for writing the editor and hoping that he fixes the article.

In many cases, Wikipedia has a better, more in-depth article than I might find from Brittanica on most articles that I’ve looked at. Wikipedia’s article on Windows XP is a well-written article about the operating system that a good portion of the world’s computers use. I’d be interested to see if Brittanica has anything on it. Sure, Wikipedia has its drawbacks. But so does Brittanica. And I trust Wikipedia as much as I would Brittanica, knowing that thousands of users like myself are constantly looking through articles for vandalism and inaccuracies.

Since I believe you’re truly being genuine here, I’ll try once more to state this as clearly as possible.

When people talk about open source projects like Linux and Apache, they are talking about the license by which the software is available, yes, but they are also talking about more than that. By “open source”, they mean the philosophy behind it, the process by which it is developed, and the emergent effects (like Linus’s law) that are as much the result of the philosophy and process as they are a result of the license.

When I write “Wikipedia is not open source”, clearly I don’t mean that the GNU FDL is so unlike the GPL or the APL to constitute a different beast. (Indeed, I specifically stated the opposite of that.) Largely, I don’t mean that the philosophy behind the Wikipedia is so unlike the one behind Linux or the Apache web server to constitute a different beast. (I specifically stated the opposite of that as well.) I do mean that the process by which Wikipedia is developed, or more specifically, the process by which Wikipedia is reviewed, is so unlike the process used to develop and review Linux, Apache and every other open source project in the world, that it may very well constitute a different beast—so different that the emergent effects we ascribe to other “open” projects may not apply to Wikipedia.

In other words, Wikipedia is not “open source”, not because its license and not because of its philosophy, but because of its review process. I’m really not foolish enough to be believe that the review process formally defines the phrase “open source”. I am, however, pragmatic enough to recognize that when one says “open source”, they are generally talking about more than a license.

You don’t have to agree with me, but I don’t think I know any other ways to say this.

Do you think that there is a difference between “open source” and “open source software”?

If the answer is yes, what is this difference?