What do you make of the Wikimedia projects?

[革命者]

Are they helping to emancipate those with little means or are they a threat to authors, being robbed of a source of income when people publish their ideas and analyses online for free, just basically summarising their works without much added value? Is it a threat to education, because fewer people read the primary sources, many of which can't be accessed without paying a fee? Is it the end of the encyclopedia made by many professional experts?

Is their concept of a neutral point of view a myth? Do they successfuly reach a neutral point of view?

Is Wikipedia helpful? Can Wikibooks create valuable classroom material? Can Wikibooks substitute non-free books by professionals with expertise?

What are the parallels with the Open Source movement? Is there a symbiosis between the open content or source movement and the commercial providers of content and computer programs (publishers and software manufacturers)? Is the open content and source movement parasitic, thus destroyng its symbiotic partner, and consequently itself?


Scotty

[RedStarOverChina]

I don't think neutrality is even remotely possible. That is not to say Wikipedia in its entirety is an failed effort---I find Wikipedia extremely helpful.

90% of the contributes on Wikipedia are Western, young, white males. Consequently you have long entries on tiny towns in the US or the UK, but no mention at all for many big cities in Africa or Asia. That alone illustrates the difficulties in maintaining even a remotely neutral perspective.

[The Idler]

In a free society of free access to goods and services (regardless of means to pay), information should be free.

Encyclopedia Britannica, Encarta, and other professional media owners extracted surplus value from non-neutral authors and writers, and limited access to their media based on customers ability to pay.

The only drawback of Wikinews is it's citizen journalism - and therefore not as democratic as say digg/reddit.

[革命者]

So, democracy is the most important quality the media should have? Doesn't this democracy has some prerequisites other than access and voting power? Is everyone equally capable of writing and giving importance to information? Is it such that the more people have a say in the production of information, the more neutral that infomation is? Is neutrality really important, and what constitutes neutrality? Does the capitalist nature of paid media affect its quality? How?