UK Open Source Media Watch Comments http://www.ukuug.org/mediawatch Supported by UKUUG and the Open Source Academy Wed, 22 May 2013 10:12:05 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5 by: Kathryn Cramer http://www.ukuug.org/mediawatch/?p=878#comment-27281 Sat, 27 Jan 2007 18:17:03 +0000 http://www.ukuug.org/mediawatch/?p=878#comment-27281 There is a serious and generalized problem with the way Wikipedia is edited, and so Microsoft really has good reason to want that sort of thing. The editors of Wikipedia have fallen into a cultish hivemind suspicion of anyone with expertise and anyone who might possibly make (or lose) money based on what is said on WIkipedia. I have just done a series of blog posts concerning issues of Wikipedia and biography: • <a href="http://www.kathryncramer.com/kathryn_cramer/2007/01/a_proposal_shou.html" rel="nofollow">A Proposal: SF Author Bios Should Be Moved from Wikipedia to the ISFDB Wiki</a> • <a href="http://www.kathryncramer.com/kathryn_cramer/2007/01/wikipedia_sourc.html" rel="nofollow">Has Wikipedia Declared the Death of Print?</a>, and • <a href="http://www.kathryncramer.com/kathryn_cramer/2007/01/how_to_write_an.html" rel="nofollow">How to Write an Author Bio: A Tutorial for Wikipedians &amp; Others</a> The general editorial system seems to be that there is a pool of "editors" who have special priviledges as enforcers and that they can assist people to keep things in the spirit of what Wikipedia is and does. These "editors" leap in regardless of whether they have expertise in a subject area or not, and can be exceedingly rude, if not downright malicious. What seems to have evolved is a situation in which the editing of Wikipedia has become a specialized form of trolling. But Wikipedia has huge Google Juice and people tend to believe what they read there whether they should or not. So is Wikigate 07 Microsoft's problem? Or Wikipedia's? I tend to think its Wikipedia's. But what do I know? As they told me, if I'm an expert in somthing 'd best go elsewhere. Besides, I must be corrupt because a few decades ago I was married to a guy who helped found Microsoft's International Sales Division. There is a serious and generalized problem with the way Wikipedia is edited, and so Microsoft really has good reason to want that sort of thing. The editors of Wikipedia have fallen into a cultish hivemind suspicion of anyone with expertise and anyone who might possibly make (or lose) money based on what is said on WIkipedia. I have just done a series of blog posts concerning issues of Wikipedia and biography:
• A Proposal: SF Author Bios Should Be Moved from Wikipedia to the ISFDB Wiki
• Has Wikipedia Declared the Death of Print?, and
• How to Write an Author Bio: A Tutorial for Wikipedians & Others

The general editorial system seems to be that there is a pool of “editors” who have special priviledges as enforcers and that they can assist people to keep things in the spirit of what Wikipedia is and does. These “editors” leap in regardless of whether they have expertise in a subject area or not, and can be exceedingly rude, if not downright malicious. What seems to have evolved is a situation in which the editing of Wikipedia has become a specialized form of trolling.

But Wikipedia has huge Google Juice and people tend to believe what they read there whether they should or not. So is Wikigate 07 Microsoft’s problem? Or Wikipedia’s? I tend to think its Wikipedia’s.

But what do I know? As they told me, if I’m an expert in somthing ‘d best go elsewhere. Besides, I must be corrupt because a few decades ago I was married to a guy who helped found Microsoft’s International Sales Division.

]]> by: James Carrier http://www.ukuug.org/mediawatch/?p=876#comment-26732 Thu, 25 Jan 2007 01:09:20 +0000 http://www.ukuug.org/mediawatch/?p=876#comment-26732 Written and sent! Thanks for the heads up. Written and sent! Thanks for the heads up.

]]> by: alain williams http://www.ukuug.org/mediawatch/?p=846#comment-22524 Mon, 25 Dec 2006 16:01:45 +0000 http://www.ukuug.org/mediawatch/?p=846#comment-22524 Typical lawyer: not really understanding what he is talking about while talking up potential problems (which is good for his business). Typical lawyer: not really understanding what he is talking about while talking up potential problems (which is good for his business).

]]> by: Daniel http://www.ukuug.org/mediawatch/?p=805#comment-19179 Fri, 17 Nov 2006 22:53:38 +0000 http://www.ukuug.org/mediawatch/?p=805#comment-19179 Phil Booth isn't described as scary, Adam Laurie is. And further on, "Laurie is actually not a scary individual [...] but much of the electronic information he uncovers is." Laurie is protrayed in a positive manner. Meanwhile, blogging about such a triviality is about as geeky as you can get (possibly beaten by posting pedantic comments in response). Phil Booth isn’t described as scary, Adam Laurie is. And further on, “Laurie is actually not a scary individual […] but much of the electronic information he uncovers is.” Laurie is protrayed in a positive manner.

Meanwhile, blogging about such a triviality is about as geeky as you can get (possibly beaten by posting pedantic comments in response).

]]> by: Ian Lynch http://www.ukuug.org/mediawatch/?p=803#comment-18904 Wed, 15 Nov 2006 16:56:04 +0000 http://www.ukuug.org/mediawatch/?p=803#comment-18904 Question is why there is no strategy to get open source applications in general more widely used in the public sector. Apart from immediate savings on licenses it would increase competition in the software industry and enable further cost savings in the long run as well as wider contributuions from UK based businesses to the benefit of the local economy. Labour for all its talk of reform behaves like a technological dimosaur profligate with the public purse. Question is why there is no strategy to get open source applications in general more widely used in the public sector. Apart from immediate savings on licenses it would increase competition in the software industry and enable further cost savings in the long run as well as wider contributuions from UK based businesses to the benefit of the local economy. Labour for all its talk of reform behaves like a technological dimosaur profligate with the public purse.

]]> by: Nick http://www.ukuug.org/mediawatch/?p=780#comment-16776 Thu, 19 Oct 2006 12:55:09 +0100 http://www.ukuug.org/mediawatch/?p=780#comment-16776 There's also a <a href='http://cy.openoffice.org/' rel="nofollow">Welsh Language version of OpenOffice.org</a> There’s also a Welsh Language version of OpenOffice.org

]]> by: WCT http://www.ukuug.org/mediawatch/?p=761#comment-15247 Sat, 30 Sep 2006 01:07:21 +0100 http://www.ukuug.org/mediawatch/?p=761#comment-15247 The tool itself: http://webcurator.sf.net/ The tool itself: http://webcurator.sf.net/

]]> by: alain williams http://www.ukuug.org/mediawatch/?p=749#comment-11486 Mon, 04 Sep 2006 07:59:36 +0100 http://www.ukuug.org/mediawatch/?p=749#comment-11486 £1,450 per pupil - wow that is a lot, presumably it is for more than h/ware &amp; s/ware but support as well. Does anyone know quite what ? £1,450 per pupil - wow that is a lot, presumably it is for more than h/ware & s/ware but support as well. Does anyone know quite what ?

]]> by: eIT http://www.ukuug.org/mediawatch/?p=415#comment-9844 Wed, 16 Aug 2006 08:43:08 +0100 http://www.ukuug.org/mediawatch/?p=415#comment-9844 Nice update, thanks for the links Making revenues from free &amp; open source software is one of the most frequently asked questions these days. While there have been a few successful examples of companies (like MySQL, Red Hat etc) which are making money, I’d surmise that these are still very early days for open source revenue &amp; profit models. While open source as an operational paradigm certainly has been having exceptional success against proprietary and closed-software models in the recent past, in my opinion, a lot more thought need to be given and experimentations done before the emergence of viable revenue models for the free &amp; open source models that can successfully compete with the current proprietary software revenue model. Some specifics of the business models are emerging fast, but it will take a few years for the market to test each of these out and hopefully, the fittest will survive. I co-ordinate a site that focuses exclusively on <b><a href="http://www.follars.com" rel="nofollow">revenue models from open source is Follars.com</a></b> – Free, Open-source Dollars! I plan to include the links you have provided - at least one of them at the page. Thanks again for the update Ec @ <a href="http://www.eit.in" rel="nofollow">IT, Software Database @ eIT.in</a> Nice update, thanks for the links

Making revenues from free & open source software is one of the most frequently asked questions these days. While there have been a few successful examples of companies (like MySQL, Red Hat etc) which are making money, I’d surmise that these are still very early days for open source revenue & profit models.

While open source as an operational paradigm certainly has been having exceptional success against proprietary and closed-software models in the recent past, in my opinion, a lot more thought need to be given and experimentations done before the emergence of viable revenue models for the free & open source models that can successfully compete with the current proprietary software revenue model. Some specifics of the business models are emerging fast, but it will take a few years for the market to test each of these out and hopefully, the fittest will survive.

I co-ordinate a site that focuses exclusively on revenue models from open source is Follars.com – Free, Open-source Dollars! I plan to include the links you have provided - at least one of them at the page. Thanks again for the update

Ec @ IT, Software Database @ eIT.in

]]> by: dhbarr http://www.ukuug.org/mediawatch/?p=705#comment-6096 Mon, 19 Jun 2006 21:47:43 +0100 http://www.ukuug.org/mediawatch/?p=705#comment-6096 The dhbarr in question, here. Actually, since I can't do much to help out the OLPC project I just go in and add articles to the most-linked non-existant terms. On that day I seem to recall there were 5 or 6 links to PuppyLinux and no actual content, so I tried to summarize the PuppyLinux FAQ from a NPOV to get the ball rolling. -Mr. dhbarr. The dhbarr in question, here. Actually, since I can’t do much to help out the OLPC project I just go in and add articles to the most-linked non-existant terms. On that day I seem to recall there were 5 or 6 links to PuppyLinux and no actual content, so I tried to summarize the PuppyLinux FAQ from a NPOV to get the ball rolling.

-Mr. dhbarr.

]]>