h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I think a title change is a good idea, as much as anything because 'Open Your Source' doesn't make it entirely clear what the subject matter is.

I know that the idea of a collaborative topic is that it's the view of a wide range of Researchers and not precision analysis, but I think that including the more of the views given by Researchers in this thread could helpfully broaden that span of opinion.

Something that really does need to be altered though is the section about New Scientist - that quote's going to have to be pruned back a lot as currently it has the potential to break copyright laws.

On a more pedantic note, license > licence.

Hopefully this can be ready for the Guide soon? As I think there's an awful lot of information in there that could be helpful to people like me who know little about the subject. Also, I know from experience that compiling what you refer to as 'sprawling' collaborative Entries is quite a task in itself, so thanks very much and well done for getting it this far.

"It simply needs to be less of a polemic and more of an objective historical account of the movement and its achievements."

OK. I get the message. I'll be on to it as soon as I can.

"I think a title change is a good idea, as much as anything because 'Open Your Source' doesn't make it entirely clear what the subject matter is."

I was waiting for someone to notice that.

"Hopefully this can be ready for the Guide soon?"

Not very likely!

"so thanks very much and well done for getting it this far."

Well, I'm glad I'm not being rushed, but please, *please*, PLEASE, if somebody with more patience or more time could just write something objective to be put into this entry, or my new version, wherever that is - even if it's just a small part of it, or just a starting point - just do it! Post it here and you'll be credited for eternity.

Thank you.

Here it is: A4151918. That's a new version I started writing. If that's not objective, I don't know what is.

All I need are some other suggestions about how to merge the two together. If you feel you've already explained how it should be done, I'll use my own initiative and it'll probably sort itself out.

Right.

This is much better. What I would like to see mentioned is how the Internet has aided the open source development model, allowing widely dispersed teams of developers to collaborate. Something about SourceForge, perhaps?

And also how Open Sources does not necessarily mean 'software': Wikipedia (boo, hiss) is an open-source encyclopaedia, and topics are developed in just the same way as software. Sorry, 'encyclopEdia'.

Indeed. Note that I had discussed open source cola in the original article, so I'll put Wikipedia in the same bracket (i.e. non-software open source entities [although Wikipedia's software is also open source, of course]).

Seeing as the entry now comprises fact rather than opinion, we have an something we can get our teeth into in PR. I would suggest you might consider and expand upon the following if you like:
* h2g2 is much more like the scientific research process than OS, which tends to be much more in line with Wikipedia. In science, results are subject to PR before they join the corpus of knowledge. Unless the reveiewers agree with the point of publishing the research it won't get published. Likewise with PR in h2g2: also the review process often adds value to the original entry, as in science. Wikipedia allows *anyone* to publish *anything* (just about) without it being subject to scrutiny. It can be just plain wrong, whioch means that it's then incumbent upon others to fix it.

* OS has become popular recently because of 'commoditisation'. Software is now a commodity rather then a specialised business tool. OpenOffice is perfectly acceptable for most domestic users' purposes, unlike MS Office which is heavyweight business software attracting a heavyweight premium.
* OS is an *operating model*. I work in pharmaceutical research and one of the most common complaints from the lay public is that 'you only make drugs which make a lot of money'. Quite right too. This is not cynicism, just a recognition that drug companies are *businesses* which happen to make money by developing and selling medicines. The have found a niche, which is that the devloped world is perfectly happy to pay lots of money for drugs that deal with maladies of the Western lifestyle, such as acid dyspepsia, bowel cancer, heart disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (caused by smoking). There are not-for-profit models as well, where the money made on drugs which treat Diseases of the Rigch can be plowed back into research on medicines for major killers such as malaria or leishmaniasis.

Microsoft happens to be a business that makes lots of money by selling software, which is why virtually everything it produces is of use to someone somewhere. There is nothing inherently wrong with this way of working: if people want to pay money for certain kinds of software then it's up to them. Developing good software takes time and a lot of talent. *Solely* because of the Internet, however, there is now an alternative operating model which allows talented individuals to get together to write software for its own sake, and this model does not operate under the constraint that the end product has to sell.

Thanks. I'm not sure where to fit those points in; I have avoided comparing the open source model to the proprietary model directly.

Notice the new additions and changes. I hope they're acceptable.

Other suggestions are very welcome. It could probably do with a tidy up. And I think to break the 'monotony', some other humourous quips, especially in the history section, might be worthwhile.

This ought to be a shoo-in now.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4727267.stm
anybody see this?

I have read similar articles by him, yes.

Please note I've swapped the entries over.

So A4151918 is now the old one.
A2953334 is the new one, which will probably need a little bit more work (pending suggestions).

I've read some of his stuff. It amazes me how many of these technology 'gurus' really do nothing but indulge in fanciful speculation for a living. That's why I don't pay a blind bit of notice to what they say.

Is this ready Baryonic Being?
Seems to be to me
Oberon2001

Your Guide Entry has just been picked from Peer Review by one of our Scouts, and is now heading off into the Editorial Process, which ends with publication in the Edited Guide. We've therefore moved this Review Conversation out of Peer Review and to the entry itself.

If you'd like to know what happens now, check out the page on 'What Happens after your Entry has been Recommended?' at EditedGuide-Process. We hope this explains everything.

Thanks for contributing to the Edited Guide!

This is a prime example of PR working as it should. Good on yer, BB, for working with it.

Great job, BB! This looks lovely.