bug-gne
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Bug-gnupedia] (long) summary: GNUpedia's direction (and nupedia)


From: Seth Nickell
Subject: [Bug-gnupedia] (long) summary: GNUpedia's direction (and nupedia)
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 15:20:02 -0800

Integrated with all-manner of detailed technical discussion have been a
few threads ruminating on the general philosophies and directions
GNUpedia should adopt. Because this seems to be a crucial issue, one
which may even alter our technical architecture to some extent, I think
it is worth addressing it with due deliberation. Here is a basic summary
of general proposals various individuals (in varying numbers) seem to
support, and who the main supporters are. I cannot be perfectly
accurate, so please forgive and correct me if/when I misrepresent a
view. I'll try to clearly designate my own opinions.

1) GNUpedia should remain an encyclopedia. Possible names include
GNUcyclopedia, GNUledge...some others. The project will provide some
form of loose user-moderation to prevent the database from being
overwhelmed by spam and trolls, but will generally avoid editorial
constraint. Editors might be provided as an encouraged supplement to a
contributor's toolset. Community participation will help keep quality to
a usable level, but non-mainstream views will be carefully protected and
presented. Data will probably not be deleted, but may be filtered from
certain views as appropriate. I haven't heard this view actively
defended in "direction related threads" as of late, but I take it as
implicit from a few of the more technical discussions. According to
Hector, RMS may favour this direction. Bob Dodd and Tom Chance were very
outspoken supporters of this view, though it appears Tom and possibly
Bob have changed to 2.

2) GNUpedia becomes a free library. Possible names include
GNU/Alexandria, Foundation, GNU/Nalanda, GNUledge...some others. The act
of becoming a library may help remove some of the more onerous issues,
as it becomes clear that works of opinion / contention are acceptable
entries. Once again, editors might be provided as a resource. 'GNUpedia'
now seeks to archive and present the most complete picture of human
knowledge that it can. Works ranging from articles, to books, to
snippets, to poetry, to music, to novels appear to have a home in a free
library. Some mechanism to avoid clear spam/trolls will presumably be
needed. This seems to have the current active support of Jimmy Whales,
Hector Arena (pending RMS approval), Mike Warren, Bernd Kulawik, Bryce
Harrington, Bob Dodd, Rob Scott, and myself. Others have referenced the
notion positively, though their opinions are not clear.

3) GNUpedia becomes a free software project focusing on providing the
technical underpinnings for a free encyclopedia.  The only name I have
seen proposed in relation to this is "GNU Open Content Framework".
Presumably the project will have a database, possibly that of Nupedia.
The project will seek to not only provide solid well-understood
software, but will have an additional research focus, experimenting with
various forms of information sorting, presentation, classification,
sifting, etc. This idea has the support of Duncan Lock and has been
mentioned as a good idea by others including myself.

4) GNUpedia and Nupedia merge. Propenents of this usually believe the
projects are fundamentally compatible in purpose and method. This idea
hasn't been discussed as much recently, but seems to have been the
initial plan of RMS and Nupedia. It was originally supported by Jimmy
Whales, and others (such as Bill Volk), and Robert Horning with
reservations.

5) GNUpedia and Nupedia maintain a symbiotic relationship, maybe even
sharing the same database (different parts though). Anything in Nupedia
would be in GNUpedia, and Nupedia would draw on what they saw as the
best articles in GNUpedia. Wasted effort would be minimal, and technical
solutions and content can be easily shared. GNUpedia and Nupedia
essentially become different presentations of a similar database, with
different standards for submission of content into their respective
subsections. Imran Ghory and Mike Warren appear to support this idea.

My opinion:

I do not like 1 much. Calling GNUpedia in that form an encyclopedia is a
misnomer. Not only that, but because it purports to be fufilling that
purpose...the GNU project can't very well support Nupedia as well. The
goals of 1 are extremely valuable, but seem more consistent with a
library, such as (2). While a simple relabling may not seem that
important, it provides the option of the GNU project endorsing BOTH
'gnupedia' as a free library, and Nupedia as a free encyclopedia in that
library.

My current favored solution is a combination of 2 and 3, with two being
the focus. I think 'gnupedia' will possess a more technical audience
that would be well suited to creating a technical framework for serving
the library. Presumably Nupedia would be able to use this framework too,
esp. as it becomes more advanced. The creation of a library is a
valuable project, and will provide a resource for more than just
articles (a relatively limited scope), but also for artistic expression,
and clear pieces of opinion. Presumably the library will have some
organization (perhaps self imposed), so there will be a section that
will function very similarly to the "encyclopedia" proposed in 1, e.g.
filled with lots of small factual articles. Nupedia's content itself
could be a subsection of this. This imho spreads freedom to a greater
area, allows everyone to do what they want, and even provides the least
redundancy of creation.

That said, though I think it could be very difficult and would require
ongoing cooperation 5 also seems viable. Merging the two projects seems
to be a small waste of efforts, though a possibly good solution. It
doesn't expand the scope of freedom so much as producing a library and
an encyclopedia.

Thus I think 'gnupedia' should become the GNU free library, Nupedia
should become the GNU free encyclopedia, and they should attempt to
cooperate on a technical basis. This seems to constrain people the
least, and provides the most opportunity for expanding free information
and knowledge. Also, so far as I can tell, this idea has the strongest
support numerically.

cheers, 

-Seth



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]