Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipdia talks about how Wikipedia aims to give people access to the sum of human knowledge.
He describes how Wikipedia is very popular across the globe. Hundreds of thousands of articles in numbers of languages.
He notes how Wikipedia is a charitable organization with only 12 employees. Yet, look at the affect they have on the world.
Spent $1,000,000 in 2006 - supported by small donations from people around the world. (Also gets donations of caching servers around the world.)
Wales goes on to define, what he means by free access to the sum of human knowledge. “Free as in speech, not as in beer.”
The Wikipedia’s license allows you the:
Freedom to copy
Freedom to modify
Freedom to redistribute
Freedom to redistribute modified versions
He goes on to further refine his term the sum of all human knowledge. He describes Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, not a data dump. This is a Global Movement to gather content in every single language.
The folks from Wikipedia ask people to build their own wikipedia in their own language. They have a “Wikipedia academy” which offers seminars on how to edit wikipedia. (note: check http://icommons.org)
He notes, it takes 5 to 10 regular users in a community to sustain regular posting in a paricular language / about a particular subject.
For instance, he tells the story of the “Father of Swahili”. Every night he wrote articles for Wikipedia. This person then reached out to Swahili language bloggers. Then the 5 to 10 contributors gathered together and started helping each other.
Wales goes on to describe Wikia as a completely separate venture. Wikia is like every other kind of book, only it is writing that people build as an online community.
Goal of Wikia is for profit, but it still is freely distributed.
He offers an explanation about why this all is happening… The internet is all about consumer media.
He cites the example of the “Muppet Wiki” as a resource for community created long tail content.
He cites bloggers as performing the function of “Armchair Analysis” and says that “a good blog is equal to the editorial section of the New York Times.”
He points out that Wikipedia aims to embrace neutrality as a core value that Wikipedia should not take a stand on any controversial issue and that it should describe the fight rather than taking a stance.
The nature of wikis is such that there is the potential for content to be destroyed. But points out that writing that survives is writing that people can mutually agree is an accurate description.
In a moment of self-assessment, he notes that Wiki News reporting is not too good. He notes that “News requires infrastrucutre, ability to be patient and wait for news to happen.” Although, one potential exception that he sees as fertile ground for exploration would be for crowdourced sports reporting.
He points out the following lessons for public broadcasters:
- a lot of this is made possible by the creative commons licensing framework
- he asks us to think about how new content could be created from public broadcasting content. To think about community reuse.
- he asks us to think about how we can you release content in a way where we can get people interested in what we are doing. For example: he talks about how he worked to persuade art museums to make high quality photograph available for use on wikipedia - and how that encourages people to go to the museum.
The next section of the presentation is on Wikia and the future of search
(Insert link to Wikia Labs)
Note: this is a political statement about Open Source, about Open Access.
Here, Wales is offering people all t necessary software to set up a Free Search Engine - would this be useful for Jake Shapiro’s Pirate Media Bay initiative? Would this be useful for PBCore?
from
rakesh kumar
www.close2job.com
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Setting software free: Eben Moglen and digital age morality
Reading Eben Moglen’s keynote address, “Freeing the Mind: Free Software and the Death of Proprietary Culture,” I felt a bit like Richard Stallman while he worked to replace UNIX with GNU: reaching the same destination but apprehensive about the other guy’s route.
Moglen, a law professor and founder of the Software Freedom Law Center, discusses free software v. the behemoths of software largely in moral terms. Software is a public utility, he argues, and one that must be recognized as such because, in the 21st century, it is the cornerstone of “the ethical right to share information” (Moglen 2003). And, for the first time in history, information isn’t weighed down by the heavy, expensive, hard-to-transport molecules upon which it was once carried—pages in books, magnetic clusters on videocassettes, optical stamps on compact discs. Now that everything can be transferred freely through the Internet, it is revealed that information was free all along; it was just those pesky info-bearing artifacts we were paying for.
Moglen goes on to say: “every piece of useful or beautiful information can be distributed to everybody at the same cost that it can be distributed to anybody. For the first time in human history, we face an economy in which the most important goods have zero marginal cost” (Moglen 2003). Quite true. But miraculous as a zero marginal cost may be, Moglen neglects to tackle the issue of the cost of the first copy. This was true long before the Internet.
The first copy of a book is exorbitantly expensive, because the costs begin when the author puts the first page into the typewriter and starts typing. Then there is the author’s time, effort, grocery bills, electricity bills, water, heat, trips to the library—and all before the book even gets to a book publisher, which the digital age purports to replace. The great thing about printing is that the cost of subsequent copies approaches zero. In the digital age, the cost of copies two to two million is zero. Wondrous as it is, it doesn’t erase the time, effort and money that went into copy one.
ref : fsdaily
from
rakeshkumar
www.csestuff.co.cc
www.close2job.com
Moglen, a law professor and founder of the Software Freedom Law Center, discusses free software v. the behemoths of software largely in moral terms. Software is a public utility, he argues, and one that must be recognized as such because, in the 21st century, it is the cornerstone of “the ethical right to share information” (Moglen 2003). And, for the first time in history, information isn’t weighed down by the heavy, expensive, hard-to-transport molecules upon which it was once carried—pages in books, magnetic clusters on videocassettes, optical stamps on compact discs. Now that everything can be transferred freely through the Internet, it is revealed that information was free all along; it was just those pesky info-bearing artifacts we were paying for.
Moglen goes on to say: “every piece of useful or beautiful information can be distributed to everybody at the same cost that it can be distributed to anybody. For the first time in human history, we face an economy in which the most important goods have zero marginal cost” (Moglen 2003). Quite true. But miraculous as a zero marginal cost may be, Moglen neglects to tackle the issue of the cost of the first copy. This was true long before the Internet.
The first copy of a book is exorbitantly expensive, because the costs begin when the author puts the first page into the typewriter and starts typing. Then there is the author’s time, effort, grocery bills, electricity bills, water, heat, trips to the library—and all before the book even gets to a book publisher, which the digital age purports to replace. The great thing about printing is that the cost of subsequent copies approaches zero. In the digital age, the cost of copies two to two million is zero. Wondrous as it is, it doesn’t erase the time, effort and money that went into copy one.
ref : fsdaily
from
rakeshkumar
www.csestuff.co.cc
www.close2job.com
Monday, February 25, 2008
Microsoft pledge excluding primary competitors
Microsoft pledge excluding primary competitors.
Yesterday's media briefing by Microsoft on its pledge to release interoperability information for flagship products contained little actual news. Over the years Microsoft has made multiple similar pledges and they at times proved to be detrimental rather than beneficial for interoperability. Examining the terms of the Microsoft's latest action shows no major change of policy.
The announcement confirmed that Microsoft was planning to use its software patent portfolio against interoperating products by requiring a patent license for all commercial activity. This is consistent with its previous attempts at allowing competition only where it provides no actual challenge to its monopolies.
Microsoft's patent licences are incompatible with Free Software, the primary competitor to Microsoft in many markets. Almost all major competitors have made significant investments in Free Software and built substantial parts of their business on the principles of freedom of competition and innovation.
Free Software's freedoms to use, study, share and improve software without additional restrictions are key to the success and utility of Free Software in both commercial and non-commercial ICT infrastructure. They are also the basis for many of today's working examples of interoperability and competition.
Microsoft's announcement contains little more than a statement that they will support interoperability only under terms that disallow fair competition. Their press statements may indicate otherwise, but terms of release highlight this explicitly. There has never been a shortage of promises by Microsoft, but results are what must be considered rather than words.
Regrettably, the lack of substance in the pledge and the timing suggest that Microsoft is primarily hoping for positive media coverage and not an examination of the substance of their limited interoperability release.
It can be no coincidence that delegates are meeting in Geneva for the Ballot Resolution Meeting (BRM) during this period to discuss serious issues in the proposed MS-OOXML format, through which Microsoft aims to reaffirm their control over standards in the global marketplace.
If Microsoft truly means to facilitate interoperability and fair access they should spare delegates the BRM, retract MS-OOXML from ISO and converge this work into the global effort for the Open Document Format, the existing Open Standard at ISO for office documents.
They should also release full interoperability information for all their products without restrictions of any kind.
About the Free Software Foundation Europe:
The Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) is a non-profit non-governmental organisation active in many European countries and involved in many global activities. Access to software determines participation in a digital society. To secure equal participation in the information age, as well as freedom of competition, the Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) pursues and is dedicated to the furthering of Free Software, defined by the freedoms to use, study, modify and copy. Founded in 2001, creating awareness for these issues, securing Free Software politically and legally, and giving people Freedom by supporting development of Free Software are central issues of the FSFE.
Further information: http://fsfeurope.org
rakeshkumar
www.close2job.com
Yesterday's media briefing by Microsoft on its pledge to release interoperability information for flagship products contained little actual news. Over the years Microsoft has made multiple similar pledges and they at times proved to be detrimental rather than beneficial for interoperability. Examining the terms of the Microsoft's latest action shows no major change of policy.
The announcement confirmed that Microsoft was planning to use its software patent portfolio against interoperating products by requiring a patent license for all commercial activity. This is consistent with its previous attempts at allowing competition only where it provides no actual challenge to its monopolies.
Microsoft's patent licences are incompatible with Free Software, the primary competitor to Microsoft in many markets. Almost all major competitors have made significant investments in Free Software and built substantial parts of their business on the principles of freedom of competition and innovation.
Free Software's freedoms to use, study, share and improve software without additional restrictions are key to the success and utility of Free Software in both commercial and non-commercial ICT infrastructure. They are also the basis for many of today's working examples of interoperability and competition.
Microsoft's announcement contains little more than a statement that they will support interoperability only under terms that disallow fair competition. Their press statements may indicate otherwise, but terms of release highlight this explicitly. There has never been a shortage of promises by Microsoft, but results are what must be considered rather than words.
Regrettably, the lack of substance in the pledge and the timing suggest that Microsoft is primarily hoping for positive media coverage and not an examination of the substance of their limited interoperability release.
It can be no coincidence that delegates are meeting in Geneva for the Ballot Resolution Meeting (BRM) during this period to discuss serious issues in the proposed MS-OOXML format, through which Microsoft aims to reaffirm their control over standards in the global marketplace.
If Microsoft truly means to facilitate interoperability and fair access they should spare delegates the BRM, retract MS-OOXML from ISO and converge this work into the global effort for the Open Document Format, the existing Open Standard at ISO for office documents.
They should also release full interoperability information for all their products without restrictions of any kind.
About the Free Software Foundation Europe:
The Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) is a non-profit non-governmental organisation active in many European countries and involved in many global activities. Access to software determines participation in a digital society. To secure equal participation in the information age, as well as freedom of competition, the Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) pursues and is dedicated to the furthering of Free Software, defined by the freedoms to use, study, modify and copy. Founded in 2001, creating awareness for these issues, securing Free Software politically and legally, and giving people Freedom by supporting development of Free Software are central issues of the FSFE.
Further information: http://fsfeurope.org
rakeshkumar
www.close2job.com
FSF to Host Summit on Freedom for Web Services
The Free Software Foundation will host a mini-summit on Freedom for Web Services to discuss how the free software community can ensure that software, and its users, stay free in this new technological environment.
On March 16, 2008, FSF board members Mako Hill and Henri Poole will gather a small group of free software activists, thinkers, and scholars to identify the important questions that web services raise for free software and to start probing answers.
The last decade has witnessed a rise in the role of computing as a service, a massive increase in the use of web applications, the migration of personal computing tasks to data-centers, and the creation of new classes of service-based applications. These shifts have raised a host of important questions for the advocates of free software. For example, by separating use and distribution of software, these models have reduced the relevance of GNU GPL-style copyleft which treat modified web applications as if they were private software. Much more importantly, the movement of software off of personal computers has reconfigured power relationships between users and their software and complicated questions of ownership and control in ways that free software advocates do not yet know how to address.
What does freedom mean for the users and developers of web services? What is at risk? What should the free software community, and the Free Software Foundation, do to ensure that software, and its users, stay free in this new technological environment? These questions and more will be discussed at the summit.
The FSF is committed to protecting computer users' freedom, and always has been. Last year saw the release of the GNU AGPL, a license that requires service providers to provide the source for applications that users interact with over a network. While this is a helpful option for developers concerned about this use case, it doesn't completely guarantee users' freedom, and so the FSF plans to begin talking very directly about how web services affect us all. This summit will help us establish goals for a campaign to address the issue more comprehensively, and begin taking action.
ref:fsdaily
rakeshkumar
www.close2job.com
On March 16, 2008, FSF board members Mako Hill and Henri Poole will gather a small group of free software activists, thinkers, and scholars to identify the important questions that web services raise for free software and to start probing answers.
The last decade has witnessed a rise in the role of computing as a service, a massive increase in the use of web applications, the migration of personal computing tasks to data-centers, and the creation of new classes of service-based applications. These shifts have raised a host of important questions for the advocates of free software. For example, by separating use and distribution of software, these models have reduced the relevance of GNU GPL-style copyleft which treat modified web applications as if they were private software. Much more importantly, the movement of software off of personal computers has reconfigured power relationships between users and their software and complicated questions of ownership and control in ways that free software advocates do not yet know how to address.
What does freedom mean for the users and developers of web services? What is at risk? What should the free software community, and the Free Software Foundation, do to ensure that software, and its users, stay free in this new technological environment? These questions and more will be discussed at the summit.
The FSF is committed to protecting computer users' freedom, and always has been. Last year saw the release of the GNU AGPL, a license that requires service providers to provide the source for applications that users interact with over a network. While this is a helpful option for developers concerned about this use case, it doesn't completely guarantee users' freedom, and so the FSF plans to begin talking very directly about how web services affect us all. This summit will help us establish goals for a campaign to address the issue more comprehensively, and begin taking action.
ref:fsdaily
rakeshkumar
www.close2job.com
Monday, February 11, 2008
New Domain Name
Hi Friends
Now Close2job.co.cc has successfully released with WWW.CLOSE2JOB.COM domain name...........
please give your feedback to improve this site ..........
Now Close2job.co.cc has successfully released with WWW.CLOSE2JOB.COM domain name...........
please give your feedback to improve this site ..........
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Shell programing
hi friends ... here i want all of you to post a some sort of shell program and share the knowledge ..........
wish you all the best
rakeshkumar
www.csestuff.co.cc
wish you all the best
rakeshkumar
www.csestuff.co.cc
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)