Re: [ox-en] "open source model permits elitism"
- From: Stefan Merten <smerten oekonux.de>
- Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 18:38:59 +0200
Hi!
3 days ago Geert Lovink wrote:
The limitations of the open-source approach are becoming evident as
the methodology branches out of the software sector and into other
areas. The approach's most attractive attribute--its openness to
anyone--is also its Achilles heel, leaving projects vulnerable to
either unintentional or deliberate abuse that can only be deterred
through continuous self-policing.
This is true but there needs to be the option to abuse at all. For
Free Software I see little possibilities to abuse it as long as the
licenses are followed.
For Wikipedia this is different, however. Different from Free Software
Wikipedia distributes - hm - non-functional information. I.e.
information you can not proof by a machine - like you do when you run
a program and it either works or crashes. Therefore there is the room
to abuse Wikipedia and now Wikipedia became important and well-known
there is even a big inventive to abuse Wikipedia for own goals -
people might have heard of recent cases.
Indeed I think that Wikipedia faces a massive problem here. I'm keen
to know how and whether they handle it. IMHO the solution will tell a
lot about GPL society.
Indeed, only a few hundred of the
approximately 130,000 open-source projects on SourceForge.net are
active because the others are unable to accommodate open source's
shortcomings.
I heard estimations about half of the projects being inactive. It may
be more but a few hundred active projects seems to be far too low.
That is: What means active?
Also I don't think it makes much sense to count inactive projects on
SourceForge. I mean it is *so* easy to set up a project there. If you
want to compare this to capitalist corporations you'd probably need to
compare sayings(!) like "I'm going to found a firm." in some pub to
really existing firms.
The success of open-source projects often hinge on the
degree of similarity between the projects' management practices and
those of the companies they are trying to surpass, and most projects'
core component is a close-knit group rather than a wide-ranging
community.
Yeah that's true. But what's wrong with this?
Many open-source initiatives have set up a formal and
hierarchical system of governance to guarantee quality.
Why do close-knit groups need a formal and hierarchical system of
governance? Seems a bit of a contradiction here.
However, while
open source provides tools for very productive online collaboration,
ways to "identify and deploy not just manpower, but expertise" are
still lacking, according to New York University Law School's Beth
Noveck. The model permits elitism in the acceptance of contributions,
despite the egalitarian system of contribution.
I'm not sure whether I fully understand what is meant here but if
elites contributions are preferred over John Doe's contributions then
it seems to me like this is a a way to identify and deploy expertise.
Agains this seems like an open contradiction.
Mit Freien Grüßen
Stefan
--
Please note this message is written on an offline laptop
and send out in the evening of the day it is written. It
does not take any information into account which may have
reached my mailbox since yesterday evening.
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de