[kwlug disc.] floss fund

[Rick]

"Insurance Squared Inc." <gcooke at insurancesquared.com> writes:
> As a counterpoint, wikipedia isn't as clean as many people would think
> on first inspection.  It's got a seedy underbelly that's receiving
> very harsh critisism from many quarters.  ...

It is worthwhile to be aware of the criticism of Wikipedia;
and I should definitely learn more. I am currently ignorant
of this criticism.

However, the content and source _is_ still under open licenses
... and that will not change easily. I currently run
a local copy of Wikipedia on my computer and the people at Wikipedia
can't take that away.

Thus, there is a limit to which Wikipedia can fall ... simply
because, at some point, a fork will take place. In any case,
there is still a lot of momentum in the Wikipedia phenomenon
and I still consider Wikipedia to be a very positive force
on the internet.

To address the issue of giving donations from this FLOSS fund,
there is no pressing need to give to Wikipedia, especially if people
feel uncomfortable about Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a dynamic that
ensures sufficient funding whereas other projects out there probably
would benefit from more encouragement.

Personally, I don't think that Wikipedia is so fallen that they
merit no support. In time, any large organization deserves
criticism simply because there is room for miscommunication,
ego-trips by individual members, and inevitable bad sub-trends
in any complex phenomenon. For instance, I hear plenty of ominous comments
about eBay and Google but think nothing of using them on a regular basis.

A rival fork will lose branding and live infrastructure of Wikipedia.
I imagine that these problems are the primary barriers-of-forking.
Still, unlike most other organizations, Wikipedia can be forked at any time
so there is a limit to which the power of Wikipedia can be corrupted.