PDA

View Full Version : Most high-profile free culture project?



phrostbyte
February 27th, 2010, 03:31 AM
By high profile, I mean the most likely to be recognized by random people.

blueshiftoverwatch
February 27th, 2010, 04:34 AM
I doubt the average person has even heard of GNU, Linux, or Apache. They've probably heard about Firefox. But, they've almost defiantly heard of Wikipedia. As it's one of the most visited websites on the web.

V for Vincent
February 27th, 2010, 07:19 AM
This is kind of like asking what sugar tastes like. And wouldn't you know it, some straggler still picked "bitter" :-)

phrostbyte
February 28th, 2010, 04:47 AM
Wow so it looks like Wikipedia is winning/won? by a large margin. I didn't find that surprising.

nerdopolis
March 1st, 2010, 04:34 AM
I think people are more likely to know the culture behind Wikipedia, then Firefox. They know its free as in beer, but they probably don't know that Firefox is open source, but Wikipedia is well known as that 'website that anyone can edit' (And schools try to totally discredit it for that reason)

blueshiftoverwatch
March 1st, 2010, 04:55 AM
but Wikipedia is well known as that 'website that anyone can edit' (And schools try to totally discredit it for that reason)
There is a difference between "free culture" and "anyone can edit this website". Wikipedia is not a credible source for important information. And that has nothing to do with the fact that the information is released under a very loose copyright license. It's because...anyone can edit an article. Even if vandalism is quickly resolved that doesn't help you if an article was vandalized at 10 seconds after 12:01am, you go to the page at 20 seconds after 12:01am, and the article vandalism is reverted at 55 seconds after 12:01am. The page may be fixed, but your still looking at the old/static version that's been sent to your computer and is sitting as a cached file on either your hard drive or RAM.

If you use Wikipedia to do any kind of serious research, your crazy. Now compare that to a website like The Mises Institute (http://mises.org/) that releases all of they're content under a BSD-style "by attribution" Creative Commons license. You could read about Austrian Economics on both Wikipedia and the Mises Institute. But to edit a page on the Mises Institute you have to belong to a select group of trusted people. Not so on Wikipedia where anyone can make an account, log in, and write anything they want.

Frak
March 1st, 2010, 05:02 AM
If you vote for anything besides Wikipedia, you're doing it wrong.

Hwt
March 1st, 2010, 05:15 AM
If you vote for anything besides Wikipedia, you're doing it wrong.

http://ubuntuforums.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=148647&stc=1&d=1267416749

Image under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en). Original author: Nonie (http://flickr.com/photos/16971123@N05). Uploaded to: Flickr. Text by: Hwt (http://ubuntuforums.org/member.php?u=966198).

Yes Frak, that is an emu. Yeah, I totally went there.

Frak
March 1st, 2010, 05:33 AM
http://ubuntuforums.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=148647&stc=1&d=1267416749

Image under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en). Original author: Nonie (http://flickr.com/photos/16971123@N05). Uploaded to: Flickr. Text by: Hwt (http://ubuntuforums.org/member.php?u=966198).

Yes Frak, that is an emu. Yeah, I totally went there.
I rate this post 5-stars.

SomeGuyDude
March 1st, 2010, 05:37 AM
There is a difference between "free culture" and "anyone can edit this website". Wikipedia is not a credible source for important information.

Studies have proven that Wikipedia is just as credible and accurate as your average encyclopedia, if not more so.

http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2006/11/8296.ars
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
http://rhondda.wordpress.com/2008/09/18/wikipedias-reliability-validated/

Or hell, just read Wikipedia's own article on the fact: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

As soon as anyone goes "hurp a durp anyone can edit Wikipedia which means it's bad" I instantly, INSTANTLY consider any following opinions as invalid.

j.bell730
March 1st, 2010, 05:47 AM
Studies have proven that Wikipedia is just as credible and accurate as your average encyclopedia, if not more so.

http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2006/11/8296.ars
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
http://rhondda.wordpress.com/2008/09/18/wikipedias-reliability-validated/

Or hell, just read Wikipedia's own article on the fact: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

As soon as anyone goes "hurp a durp anyone can edit Wikipedia which means it's bad" I instantly, INSTANTLY consider any following opinions as invalid.

Good call, I was about to post a similar link: Free Software Magazine (http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/books/mihrfc/impossible_thing_2_comprehensive_free_knowledge_re positories_wikipedia_and_project_gutenberg).
If you want to read the whole article, then fine, but otherwise, read a little bit of the first paragraph, or skip to the section that says "Quantity and quality".

gjoellee
March 1st, 2010, 08:34 AM
How many times has Wikipedia done my homework?

blueshiftoverwatch
March 1st, 2010, 01:20 PM
Studies have proven that Wikipedia is just as credible and accurate as your average encyclopedia, if not more so...As soon as anyone goes "hurp a durp anyone can edit Wikipedia which means it's bad" I instantly, INSTANTLY consider any following opinions as invalid.
I'm not saying that the majority of the articles may not be as accurate as other sources at any given time. I said that if your doing any serious research you shouldn't use it as a source because even though it might be as accurate, the possibility that someone vandalized an article just seconds before you went to the page and minutes before anyone devandalized the article is in my opinion too great of a threat to consider it as a valid source.

I read and learn new things from Wikipedia all the time. One of my hobbies is going onto Wikipedia to read about one thing and an hour or two later I'll have read about 10 completely unrelated things because they happened to be linked to a section of an article I was reading. A few weeks ago I learned that Stalin had a slightly deformed arm and robbed banks at one point to raise funds for various communist activities. But, while that may be interesting. It's not information that is necessary for me to know. So if it turns out that none of that was true, no harm would be done.

Are you seriously telling me that you would use Wikipedia as a source for information for a college thesis? Assuming that you were writing on a subject that the teacher was actually quite knowledgeable about and could pinpoint factual errors in? Wikipedia may be a good place to find out information. But I would never take anything on there for a very serious project at face value without first cross referencing other sources.

Hwt
March 2nd, 2010, 01:33 AM
How many times has Wikipedia done my homework?

Did you print out a copy of the GFDL and turn it in with your homework each time?