News >> In The Know

Wikis, blogs, open source software and every other tool allowing individuals and crowds to express themselves are becoming a divisive issue. I KNOW I shouldn`t use phrases like "us and them". It`s inflammatory and it`s sure to get me in trouble. It makes me a prime target for anyone considering me to be in the opposite camp from them.

But it`s highly relevant in the context of wikis, open source software (OSS), reality shows and other modes of populist expression. They all divide people.

For instance: as an end-user of software, I might be considered `one of us` by other end-users. Vendors could assume I`m one of `them` (the opposite camp), if it weren`t for the fact that I`m a journalist and that you might expect `critical distance` - poor cousin of `objectivity` - from my kind.

Therefore, anything I say in support of the OSS community can be shot down by `them` for biased reporting. And anything I say in favour of the vendor community would be considered traitorous by the `us` camp, and from then on, things could get emotional.

By rights, as a reporter and commentator, I should be and consider myself to be neither. I`m in the business of weighing the facts and making a judgment.

So there you have it. You have my assurance that I don`t support your cause, simply because I cannot be seen to do so and still do a good job.

Of course there are magazines that espouse the OSS view, and you can`t very well expect them to report in favour of proprietary or commercial vendors on any given point.

Or can you? Of course you can. One expects them to report about any event or development falling within their chosen theme, whether it reflects well or poorly on the movement.

Do we really need camps then?

MEMORABLE FIGHT

At the time of writing, Wikipedia got itself embroiled in a very memorable, straight-down-the-middle fight about just such an emotional issue.

The roots of the conflict lie in the fact that Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia that allows editing by anyone (roughly speaking), became ridiculously famous and respected for being a really good Web-based knowledge resource.

Many people have written very uncritically about how wonderful it is, until this got UK IT media site The Register so irritated that it decided to make an example of this holy cow. A Register journalist wrote unforgivingly about the "garbage" on Wikipedia, and naturally, this got some people very angry, and others very smug.

The main foundation of the article is a quote of Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, who acknowledges "real quality problems" with Wikipedia. Surely, anyone would think, it`s OK to point that out? But of course, it`s the tone that got many people, and people in camps don`t like their buttons pressed.

The principal problem I have with the populist response to the site`s unsympathetic treatment of a geeky darling is that it`s so predictable and partisan. Nobody likes to be criticised, but some have learnt to take it on the chin a lot better than your average open-sourcer/Wikipedian/bloggist. This crowd is also not big on self-criticism, whereas, for all their faults, hardened commercial vendors have taken and dished it out with analysts and hostile commentators for yonks.

Hence the dearth of criticism of the project thus far, "from within the inner sanctum", as The Register puts it. It says criticism from outside the Wikipedia camp "has been rebuffed with a ferocious blend of irrationality and vigour that`s almost unprecedented in our experience: if you thought Apple, Amiga, Mozilla or OS/2 fans were er, ... passionate, you haven`t met a wiki-fiddler. For them, it`s a religious crusade".

OTHER GOOD BATTLES

Without going into the details, I think it`s common cause that both sides of the proprietary/OSS fight are guilty of enormous emotiveness in the battles they wage.

One finds the same intractability, borne of passion, among working writers and actors, about things like reality TV. `We` (people on the street, end-users and such) are tired of being at the receiving end of `their` (vendors`) actions, roadmaps, rules and exploits. `We` will create our own software, encyclopedias and TV shows, come hell or high water, never mind if it`s garbage, because sometimes it isn`t and it`s more agile and at least it`s ours.

But `we` should be able to take it on the chin. And `we` shouldn`t expect the battle-grizzled incumbents to go gently into that good night.

Tags: Consumer  and  vendor  roles