Re: [openhealth] [Fwd: Re: [n-gaa] Is Open Source Good for Innovation?]
Tim.Churches wrote: There is no proclaimed editorial group - but as I said, most good articles do have at least one person who really cares about the content of the article - often the person who wrote it originally. This editorial team is, as I said, self-appointed, unproclaimed and entirely de facto - it exerts influence by persistence and doggedness in correcting what it feels are retrograde changes to each article. And yes, it is not uncommon for there to be multiple editorial teams (often just different individuals) at war over an article - hence the conflict resolution procedures: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_resolution reflecting on your comments above, I tried Intelligent Design - interesting to see what turned up - Wikipedia has a concept of vandalism, disablement of editing and conflict resolution for that situation - thomas Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/openhealth/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [openhealth] [Fwd: Re: [n-gaa] Is Open Source Good for Innovation?]
Nandalal Gunaratne wrote: Thomas Beale [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Linus may have an iron fist control (though I doubt it), but there are many FOSS projects that don't! They seem to be doing equally well. I investigated quite a lot about how he works when using BitKeeper, because the whole of Linux was on BitKeeper at one stage. I am not at all convinced that any non-trivial project with any kind of longevity can survive and grow without a proper engineering team at the core. If there is no editorial control to maintain the design vision, it won't work. are there any counter-examples? - thomas Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/openhealth/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [openhealth] [Fwd: Re: [n-gaa] Is Open Source Good for Innovation?]
Thomas Beale wrote: Tim.Churches wrote: Why Wikipedia doesn't have one is a mystery to me. Why it is as good as it is (however good you think it is) is also a mystery. It is wrong to think of wikipedia as an open source/open content project. In fact, it is about 1 million separate open source/open content projects (that is, articles), each with their own project team. All the good projects (articles) have a small editorial team, often just one person, which really cares about them. If someone else makes a worthwhile contribution, it is allowed to stand. If someone else degrades the content, then the editorial team changes it back to its former state. Often content goes through many cycles of degradation and restoration, but the editorial team usually wins through sheer doggedness. And the overall, average direction of change across the 1 million articles is towards the better, although it is easy to find examples of articles which spiral down. But most get better. but as far as I know there is not even a signalling mechanism for the editor (how does she know she's the only one) to know about changes? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Watching_pages Where is the editorial group proclaimed? I made some additions once and never ran into any editorial mechanism. There is no proclaimed editorial group - but as I said, most good articles do have at least one person who really cares about the content of the article - often the person who wrote it originally. This editorial team is, as I said, self-appointed, unproclaimed and entirely de facto - it exerts influence by persistence and doggedness in correcting what it feels are retrograde changes to each article. And yes, it is not uncommon for there to be multiple editorial teams (often just different individuals) at war over an article - hence the conflict resolution procedures: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_resolution However, if wikipedia articles were not based on the wiki-wiki roll-back paradigm, the whole thing would collapse. As it is, the self-appointed editorial team for each article can roll back changes with a few clicks of the mouse. Self-appointed? Yes, just like the way in which leaders of almost all open source software projects are self-appointed. Both OSS and wikipedia are meritocracies in which power and position is gained by doing things - writing software or writing articles. Of course I agree with the sentiment, but I don't see where the editorial groups are constituted. They are not constituted, they are de facto. Perhaps team was the wrong word - more often there are de facto, self-appointed editorial guardians for articles. But quite often these guardians get together to back one another up. And yes, sometimes they fight. Tim C Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/openhealth/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [openhealth] [Fwd: Re: [n-gaa] Is Open Source Good for Innovation?]
The evolving work-social phenomena are sure interesting. Toyota, and agriculture research adopting the approach is pretty cool. I believe there are a LOT of companies incorporating open source work into RFPs and proposals to get a contract without even talking to the original developers - this is restricting the pool of talent and time going into open source projects, unfortunately. As the article suggests you have to control code submissions to keep the quality of the product high. And protecting the image/brand of an open source project is just as important as rejecting bad code submissions. Trademark, copyright, and making sure an author's contributions are advertised properly are all too important... Linus being a great example. Richard David Forslund wrote: http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5624944 is the link to the article I intended to post. David Forslund wrote: I thought folks might like to see this article. Any comments? -Dave Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/openhealth/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
