   author of false wikipedia entry apologizes
El Linkowhile Wikipedia is supposed to have better moderation than this, I can see how some things may fall through the cracks, especially on very obscure subjects. if I were to make a post on the company I work for, the only people that would know how to verify my information would most likely not view the page.However, this does raise a few concerns about the open source community in general, that is the complete and explicit lack of accountability and responsibility. Now, barring knee jerk reactions "YOU CAN'T REGULATE FREEDOM LOL!!1!", I want serious consideration. I know a lot of big industry companies that utilize open source software, I feel it is their responsibility to ensure that such software is up-to-the-task. However, I know smaller business that exclusively use open source software on a pure cost basis. They can't afford to stress test systems, and I think that perhaps they are as equally the victims in the case of a fatal (literally) error in a key application (imagine a heart rate monitor failing because some 1337 h4x0r that couldn't be bothered to write comments on his code let a buffer overflow slip in).Many years ago we decided as a society that a laze faire economic policy was unnaceptable. Is such an approach to software accountability equally unnaceptable?   
  I think Wikipedia is working just fine.  Considering the state of most unmoderated stuff, and the internet in general, the fact that Wikipedia pages are falsified so infrequently is very impressive.  I think what Wikipedia needs to lean toward is the citing of references for most facts, though.  If people just started deleting facts because they weren't verified, the quality would likely go up, but it may also go down as fewer people would contribute, etc.   ;  If there is accountability in free software, free software must neccessarily become not-free in some way in order to pay the real (as opposed to opportunity) cost that accountability brings with it.Whether that would be a good thing, I know not.   ;Quote:Original post by cowsarenotevilI think Wikipedia is working just fine.  Considering the state of most unmoderated stuff, and the internet in general, the fact that Wikipedia pages are falsified so infrequently is very impressive.I don't think you're being paranoid enough. "the fact that Wikipedia pages are falsified so infrequently" is not a fact at all - only the occasions upon which something is falsified and this falsification is discovered. The regular use case for Wikipedia is looking up information on a subject which you know little about, so the majority of users are not going to notice if the information being presented to them is false. I think the big problem is Wikipedia's reputation as an authoritative source. It's not. It's like doing a survey of 100 people and picking out the bits of information that occur most frequently - authority by consensus, which really isn't authority at all.   ;  hahahahahahahahahahahahaThat's awesome.   ;  A friend of mine used a Wikipedia article once to back up something he said, so I edited it on him as a joke.I changed it back afterwards, though.   ;Quote:Original post by capn_midnightMany years ago we decided as a society that a laze faire economic policy was unnaceptable. Is such an approach to software accountability equally unnaceptable?The difference is that OSS isn't a product and isn't sold.  Typically it isn't even DELIVERED as software.  Just a few text files.Quote:However, I know smaller business that exclusively use open source software on a pure cost basis. They can't afford to stress test systems, and I think that perhaps they are as equally the victims in the case of a fatal (literally) error in a key application (imagine a heart rate monitor failing because some 1337 h4x0r that couldn't be bothered to write comments on his code let a buffer overflow slip in)This is the "meatspace" equivalent of leaving a pudding with traces of nut in it on a countertop.  If a passerby is too cheap to buy his own pudding, eats it and die as a result of an allergy reaction, are you liable ?  No you aren't.  If someone sells the person a product with no mention of the traces of nuts, is he liable ?  Yes, he is.  Typically, OSS doesn't come with any warranty.  Afraid it might break ?  Fine, do not use it.  If you want accountability, either:a) Hire a firm to review the OSS directly or indirectly. (RedHat, Novell, Apple, IBM and various consultants come to mind)b) Have software custom written or buy a commercial product. (Microsoft and Sun come to mind)As for Wikipedia...  You would be stupid to expect good information from a freely editable website.  Hell, I've just written that almonds aren't nuts on my blog.  Am I liable if Joe Schmoe reads that, goes "Oh, cool !" and eats some, resulting in a painful death ?  Of course not.  What could be done however, is a company that takes snapshots of Wikipedia, ensure all the info is correct, and sell their warranty to prospective clients.Legislating Wikipedia (and, by extension, the Internet as a whole) would be a VERY dangerous thing.  I can't even begin to imagine how everything would go totally wrong in a matter of minutes.That being said, does ANY mainstream software company offer any kind of liability against bugs ?  If I am running a heart rate monitor on Windows XP, can Microsoft be liable for a failure, should it be conclusively proven that it's Windows fault if the thing crashed ?  Doubt it.  I can see embedded system vendors offer that kind of warranty, but past this...[Edited by - jfclavette on December 12, 2005 9:00:42 PM];  Anybody remember the end of the Metal Gear Solid 2 game? How Raiden had that long chat with the machine about how the internet was getting out of control, and it was built to cull the crap out? Eliminate the bad information, all that good stuff?I see Wikipedia as kind of a similar device, except that the same tools used to correct the information can corrupt it as well, and leaving those tools available to the genral public can be good and bad.As long as Wikipedia is an independently maintained resource, I don't see an issue with this, as it their server, and anything can be done with as they please. The problem is when people use it for serious research, and depend on reliable information.If wikipedia were to be used as a serious resource, they would have to make it so that not everybody could make updates. Unlike the opensource community, the information community is not as secure and verifiable. When you contribute to the open source comunity, there will always be an interest level in the project, updates make it better, and viral code will be irradicated as soon as it's discovered.With Wikipedia, the largest problem is that history is supposed to be static. It's not suppsosed to be revised or altered. It shouldn't be improved on, so you aren't going to have people going back through and checking to make sure everything is accurate. There realy isn't any way to verify it. With source code you can compile it and verify it first hand.   ;Quote:Original post by jfclavette[...]That being said, does ANY mainstream software company offer any kind of liability against bugs ? [...]Many microsoft EULAs (all that I can remeber) limit Microsoft's liability to $5, which I'm guessing is just enough to get around some obscure local laws somewhere in the US.   ;Quote:Original post by superpigQuote:Original post by cowsarenotevilI think Wikipedia is working just fine.  Considering the state of most unmoderated stuff, and the internet in general, the fact that Wikipedia pages are falsified so infrequently is very impressive.I don't think you're being paranoid enough. "the fact that Wikipedia pages are falsified so infrequently" is not a fact at all - only the occasions upon which something is falsified and this falsification is discovered. The regular use case for Wikipedia is looking up information on a subject which you know little about, so the majority of users are not going to notice if the information being presented to them is false. I think the big problem is Wikipedia's reputation as an authoritative source. It's not. It's like doing a survey of 100 people and picking out the bits of information that occur most frequently - authority by consensus, which really isn't authority at all.You took what I said out of context.  It's falsified infrequently relative to most other unmoderated sources, and I'd venture to say it's more accurate than the average page on the internet (there's a lot of bad information out there).  And most of the false information on Wikipedia seems to come from genuine errors, not someone intentionally putting false information on a page.  From a user's standpoint, this distinction is, of course, worthless, but I still think it's important to note.And Wikipedia is at least a bit better than authority by consensus.  At least it didn't think that Iraq was responsible for September 11th.   