This might sound like a nitpick, but when it's a public collaboration producing an article or report, let's call it something other than "open source".
"Open source" grates on me when it is used like that - it implies a "source" that is more accessible than the final product. This makes perfect sense in software, where there is human-readable source and then there are machine-readable instructions. Opening the source lets people see the inner workings and change them around.
What we have here is a great new way of putting minds together to make an accurate, insightful document. In this case though, it is more about the new ease with which outside opinions can be solicited and incorporated than with the "open" nature of it. After all, anyone that sees the final product also sees the "source" - they are one and the same.
We need a better term (Score:2)
"Open source" grates on me when it is used like that - it implies a "source" that is more accessible than the final product. This makes perfect sense in software, where there is human-readable source and then there are machine-readable instructions. Opening the source lets people see the inner workings and change them around.
What we have here is a great new way of putting minds together to make an accurate, insightful document. In this case though, it is more about the new ease with which outside opinions can be solicited and incorporated than with the "open" nature of it. After all, anyone that sees the final product also sees the "source" - they are one and the same.
--
grappler