As can be expected from my libertarian beliefs, I find my techie side easily embraces open-sources projects, centrally because their communal efforts are almost guaranteed to be free from deceitful intent, and also because the input of the contributors is consensual and free of the oft-corrupting desire to benefit financially. Because of all this, when I continue to hear and read attacks upon projects like Wikipedia- accusations that the information is not merely inaccurate but fraudulently wrong, I am not just bothered. I actually get a little angry.
What the Wikipedia opposition fears is a legitimate concern for information seekers everywhere- inaccuracy. But what better way to quell inaccuracy when the information in question is open to the entirety of the world for scrutiny, and better yet, correction? The English-language Wikipedia literally has thousands of human beings editing articles every hour of every day, down to the finest detail. The concept of a complete and perfect encyclopedia is just that- a concept, for that kind of perfection cannot be attained, not by this project nor any other. If it is all-or-nothing perfection you seek, be certain to involve yourself when you finally come to the determination that nothing you ever observe will be perfect.
In addition, accountability is built-in to the concept of an open-source project already, despite claims that contributors to things like Wikipedia are uneducated buffoons. Wikipedia is a secondary source of information- much of what is contained there can be traced to other locations through the use of citations, and failure to provide proof of one’s contributions is grounds for a speedy deletion, as I have experienced in the past and have since learned to accept as the proper proof of my know-how. The education of the contributor, though often useful, is not necessary- contribution is welcome from anyone, and benefit can be disseminated to everyone as a result.
Normally, this kind of public-in-entirety project would bash heads against the necessity of privacy and private practice in business and education. However, as mentioned earlier, the consensual nature of the project, combined with a transparent complex of accountability, nullifies the cry that open-source is some kind of collectivist sinbaby from the minds of the uneducated statist masses. If people did not desire the benefits of Wikipedia, or Mozilla Firefox, or Reddit, the projects themselves simply would not exist. Just as the profundity of private efforts are applauded in our capitalistic society, and just as they deserve such through their competitive toils, open-source deserves more credit than it receives today for a similar reason. Instead of functioning for money, they fight simply for their own existence, and their benefit to the intended benefactors.
For the most part, I do not resist efforts to attack Wikipedia when they are brought to my attention- many sources of accurate information exist indeed, and if I am asked to use them instead, I see little reason to jeopardize my accountability for the sake of my conceptual beliefs. But a large group of selfless individuals rests on my continued support of such projects, and I highly doubt that my personal life and my personal exploration of knowledge will see them depart any time in the near future.
No comments:
Post a Comment