Unusual Open Source

Dumitru Erhan writes "The Economist has a special report on open-source. It analyzes the way open-source projects succeed and finds that a rigid, business-like organizational structure is of vital importance to the quality of the final product. It cites Firefox, MySQL and (more recently) Wikipedia as examples of projects that do not simply allow anarchy to rein in, but which have 'real checks and balances, and real leadership taking place'. There is also a discussion of open-source methods being applied to non-software projects." From the article: "Constant self-policing is required to ensure its quality. This lesson was brought home to Wikipedia last December, after a former American newspaper editor lambasted it for an entry about himself that had been written by a prankster. His denunciations spoke for many, who question how something built by the wisdom of crowds can become anything other than mob rule."

Re:Sounds like...

[ackthpt]

From the summary:

His denunciations spoke for many, who question how something built by the wisdom of crowds can become anything other than mob rule

Isn't that how people get elected?

No.

The way people in the american political system get elected, is the parties pick candidates to be picked apart by vultures, then one rigs the election system so they win in pivotal states with large numbers of "electors" who then are supposed to vote for so and so from their districts. In backwards countries, where vile dictators for life, parties labeled as terrorists, political strongmen and their machines all practice it works pretty much the same, but only american leaders are allowed to be critical of how the other countries process works.

Mob rule would mean people actually pick their candidates themselves and throw all their votes behind them and the one who actually gets the most votes wins.

Clearly we can't have that, so strong organizations, such as political parties are necessary to ensure we get what we deserve.

i believe in education -- i'll teach you all a lesson

Re:Sounds like...

[ackthpt]

It actually makes no sense given that there's no single entity responding to the mob. They act as individuals on individual pages. Mob rule might be the case if they're deciding on a single issue. But if you can't get a mob to even decide what issue they're deciding upon, then it's just a whole lot of people doing things.

Ah, but charismatic leaders can guide mobs and once they have enough of them in line, they can direct the mob against those who don't fall into step or question things. I believe Adolf Hitler

[!Error 53 - Godwin Invoked - Thread terminated]

Re:Leadership

[Overly Critical Guy]

Funny, I thought Wikipedia is what it is today because of the frighteningly large number of people willing to explain Super Mario Bros. continuity or the mechanics of Klingon spaceships.

Re:May be a Good Thing

[try_anything]

Over the last year plus I've noticed more articles that tend to view Open Source projects as akin to 'hardnosed' business methods. I think they represent the establishment coming to a positive consensus about Open Source methods and projects.

That makes a certain amount of sense. Calling Open Source formal, heirarchical, and controlled could be a business-world way of establishing friendly relations by handing out generic compliments, like telling your new co-worker, "That's a nice shirt," or, "You have such a charming wife."

Re:Summary gets anarchism wrong

[weierstrass]

This is because dictionaries are no longer written by experts but by internet anarchists.

It's a plot by the chinese communist party to make americans stupid.

Prove it.

[Comboman]

People end up demanding facts and figures for something that can only be explained in terms of human experience.

How do we know it can only be explained in terms of human experience? Please state some facts to back up your assumption.

Re:Sounds like...

[Anonymous Coward]

People demanding facts and figures be put in an encyclopedia? Surely they've gone too far.