[Textop] FW: open systems

[Larry Sanger]

An excellent and relevant analogy worth our consideration (forwarded from a
closed list...):


Our faulty intuition about open systems 

Jamie Boyle's latest Financial Times column points up a cognitive bias we
seem to have against open systems -- on their face, open networks,
encyclopedias, and software projects seem unlikely, even doomed. Our
intuition about closed-vs-open is often wrong: 

Studying intellectual property and the internet has convinced me that we
have another cognitive bias. Call it the openness aversion. We are likely to
undervalue the importance, viability and productive power of open systems,
open networks and non-proprietary production. Test yourself on the following
questions. In each case, it is 1991 and I have removed from you all
knowledge of the past 15 years. 

You have to design a global computer network. One group of scientists
describes a system that is fundamentally open - open protocols and systems
so anyone could connect to it and offer information or products to the
world. Another group - scholars, businessmen, bureaucrats - points out the
problems. Anyone could connect to it. They could do anything. There would be
porn, piracy, viruses and spam. Terrorists could put up videos glorifying
themselves. Your activist neighbour could compete with The New York Times in
documenting the Iraq war. Better to have a well-managed system, in which
official approval is required to put up a site; where only a few actions are
permitted; where most of us are merely recipients of information; where
spam, viruses, piracy (and innovation and anonymous speech) are impossible.
Which would you have picked? 

Link <http://www.ft.com/cms/s/64167124-263d-11db-afa1-0000779e2340.html>  
 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/64167124-263d-11db-afa1-0000779e2340.html 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.dufoundation.org/archive/textop/attachments/20060814/d3ab84ea/attachment.htm