Will The Real Nupedia Please Stand Up?

jwales writes: "There was a bit of confusion recently regarding the announcement of a 'gnupedia' project. There already exists a free encyclopedia project, with all code GPL'd and all content FDL'd, and that project is Nupedia. I have written an article explaining what happened. Basically, RMS got confused." Clear as mud.

Yup, more RMS bashing on Slashdot...

> This story does clearly not flatter to RMS, who showed us again his desire to GNUlize anything out there, so that he, personally RMS, will be remembered as the one who created a great project(tm).

Mmm...flame bait on a Saturday morning. You know, Slashdot really *was* nicer in the old days when it wasn't fashionable to bash RMS at every turn and drone on with "what's the use?" anytime *any* new tech is announced. Ahem...

What is your evidence that RMS is trying to GNUlize things? The tired Linux GNU/Linux argument? RMS has explained his position on that quite clearly. If people never hear about GNU, then they are not going to hear about software freedoms. Open Source is nice and all that, but RMS is trying to educate users to value their freedom. The "Linux" movement is not trying to do that. So, people could be using Linux and GNU and have no idea *why* the system was constructed and *what* it represents. RMS and others would like to ensure that doesn't happen.

I don't think that RMS is seeking personal attention. I think he just tries to publicize GNU. Presumably, he thinks GNU is important since he has made it his Life's Work. RMS isn't the most diplomatic character, but I greatly respect the GNU project, both on a technical and philosophical level.

--Lenny

Read the article, to help Gnupedia

>In the meantime, Nupedia wants to make it known
>to the world that we are here and WE NEED YOUR
>HELP.

The article is hosted on themestream, which means that the author gets money for each hit (up to $50), so if you bother to read the article, the project is supported.
So read the Article, besides learning somehting, you are supporting the a worthwhile project.

I'll leave the ethical discussion to writing an article, placing it on a pay for hit server, and having slashdot link to it to the thread below


--

This message brought to you by Colin Davis

Good!

I'm glad to see this sorted out. I signed up with nupedia a few weeks ago, and while I'm usually following RMS a long way in his ideas, it looked as if he was grabbing the idea.

Now, the Nupedia folks seem to have given the encyclopedia idea far more thought than RMS. What RMS seemed to be announcing was little more than the web as we know it now plus a bit of resource description on top, but far from the Semantic Web of TimBL.

The Nupedia folks have really thought carefully about formal peer review, which is a very important feature of a real encyclopedia, and with the FDL, it's very promising.

Nupedia says: Yes! The more the merrier!

At Nupedia, we don't have any problem with competition. Particularly so long as everyone uses the FDL, the projects will remain compatible, so that article sharing can take place, etc.

Our complaint was that (1) RMS had offered to make an announcement with us, (2) in our discussions of our switch to the FDL, RMS never told us about Hector's project, and (3) we woke up one morning to find an announcement of a competing project with almost the exact same name and mission!

Fortunately, as I have said, sanity is prevailing. RMS apologized for his mistake, and we're happy with that.

And were on /., which will really help us with what we need most -- exposure.

I'll donate $50 to the FSF.

I'll donate $50 to the FSF.

Nupedia follows even stricter exclusionary rule

You wrote: >Nupedia doesn't follow the exclusionary rule.

Actually, we follow an even stricter exclusionary rule at the moment -- the Nupedia FDL articles do not have outside links at all.

On the website, we do have outside links, as an interim measure to (hopefully) make the website useful as we increase the number of articles in our database. We have 150+ articles in the pipeline (I don't remember the exact number at the moment.)

It never occurred to me that we should have a rule of that type (i.e. no linking to non-free materials), but now that the idea has been raised, the community will certainly consider it. (I don't really try to have the final say here -- we're an open community.)

Re:And whom is vetting the authors and articles?

Why do you think that there are "controls" on existing encylopedias? They are the products of companies and organizations who are seeking profits and/or the propagation of their own memes. The review process, if any, is not open to the general public or even to a wide selection of experts in the appropriate fields. Opposing viewpoints are often not sought out or represented in the articles. Are we supposed to trust them just because they are are printed on dead trees with gilt edges and genuine-fake-leather covers?

When books were hand-transcribed, the scribes added their own "marginalia" to clarify, endorse, expand, or object to the views of the original author. This practice was lost with the advent of printing (perhaps the only real downside to printing). Books became a "top down", one way communication medium with an implied promise of "if it's in print, it must be true".

This type of elitism has lead to the virtually unopposed spread of untruths ranging from the trivial (dates and details of events that are widely accepted, but demonstrably false by recourse to primary sources) to the tragic (the use of falsified history and anthropology to justify genocide).

In the case of Nupedia, the articles are at least offered for online peer review. Contribute your services - help MAKE it accurate.

Control vs. Chaos

GNUpedia is not toast, but being refocused. Nupedia and the repository-formerly-known-as-GNUpedia at first appeared to be very similar in goals and even considered merging. However there was a desire to be more open than Nupedia permitted, and that seems to have become GNUpedia's new focus.

Because both are using the FDL, GNUpedia could engulf Nupedia, and good articles from GNUpedia can be fed through the review process on Nupedia. I forsee a nice symbiotic relationship.

As for the issues with Nupedia's editorial control, I think they are taking a valid approach. In order to attract experts, they need to ensure a high standard of quality. However, I sincerely hope that undergrads can contribute, because I'd like to start filling in their very empty physics and mathematics sections.

umm

theres a slight difference I think though... its an encyclopedia... if its just 1 site with tons of information that would be great, compared to tons of little sites that no one knows about that has only a little information because volunteers are split apart between them all... a gui, one click shopping (relating to your patent issue), and stuff like that is different than a sorce of information.... it would be like if there were several different internets, none linked together.... linked together... hmm, only way id think it would be ok to have more than 1 is if they linked together so you have all the information information at whatever source you should choose.

Oops... Although the real world would be similar.

Grin, in the corporate world, the same thing would have likely happened, probably with a $1 settlement. Given the relationship between Nupedia and FSF, there normally would have been an NDA, so "gnupedia" would have been in violation. The main difference here is than FSF is small enough that rms should know what is going on (especially if he is doing both items).

Ooops, Brain Fart, an apology, and (probably?) an oops post on GNU.org at some point. At the very least, if gnupedia.(com|org|net) was acquired, they should point to nupedia.

In the real world, this stuff happens. When MS does the NDA violation, they usually pay a large sum (to the little company, not to MS) to either buy the company or settle so the company can launch a new business idea. When other companies do it, they either back down (and pay $1 + legal fees), or they fight and lose badly.

Now, if you don't use an NDA and give details, well, what can you do.

Now, as Nupedia is wide open, NDA isn't quite the perfect analogy. A non-compete would be, but contracts to divide the market are not looked on favorably by the anti-trust laws.

Hmm, enough ramblings, but I wonder, could a Free Software agreement not to compete be seen as anti-trust? It wouldn't really prevent "competition" as anyone can take the work for free... is it market dumping? Hmm... IP applies artificial scarcity to force IP based products to follow normal microeconomics (albeit with a monopoly/oligopoly), how do you reconcile this with Free Software...

Hmm...