10

Recently, How can I trust Wikipedia, if everyone can change it? was asked. I feel questions like this pertaining to open knowledge should be in the scope of this site (even if it isn't necessarily now).

Should open knowledge questions be in scope for this site?

  • That question has now been closed as off-topic. In order to vote for reopen, the documented official site scope has to be changed, as discussed in meta.opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/214/… – Michael Schumacher Jun 30 '15 at 7:34
  • 2
    It has since been reopened regardless of the current scope - opening and closing happens at the whim of the community. – trichoplax Jul 5 '15 at 14:15
10

I think they should. Wikipedia follows the Open Source ideas, the license being first GFDL, later CC-BY-SA. These licenses are fully in the idea behind open source, the only thing is they have no source (as they aren't code). Question about Creative Commons was asked before, so I think we can count Wikipedia as an Open project, as it has a license that falls into our already established scope.

EDIT: I would apply the same to other Open Knowledge projects, even if the license is open shareable, but not fully open source (like CC-NC and CC-ND licenses), because the top-voted answer to this, says these licenses should be included. Only because they are applied to knowledge, they shouldn't be out of scope.

  • 2
    It can even be seen as having source, since the format in which it is edited is not the same as the format in which it is viewed. – trichoplax Jun 29 '15 at 22:04
  • Right, but less important, as also if you only copy the text the license applies. – Mnementh Jun 29 '15 at 22:20
  • 1
    The fact that Wikipedia is open source isn't related to this question. I agree with your conclusion but your reasoning doesn't make sense. – Gilles Jun 30 '15 at 0:12
8

This question is not about open source. Wikipedia's content is open source, but this question is not related to this aspect of Wikipedia. It's about the openness of participation, which is unusual even for an open source project.

Since open participation shares a lot of goals with open source, I think it does make sense to include it in the topics covered by this site. There is a significant overlap between the audience interested in open source and the audience interested in open participation.

I don't know if this warrants a change in the site name. I don't know what a good, clear all-encompassing name would be.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .