Talk:Open Source Ecology
There is nothing at all notable about this project. It has produced next to nothing and doesn't look like it ever will. It does not belong in an encyclopedia.
- Strong oppose - this is an open hardware project that is starting to become very popular (TED talk of Marcin Jakubowski, recent success of $40k Kickstarter etc.)--Kozuch (talk) 09:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Strong oppose - This project seems to be gaining momentum. At best, it's premature to talk about erasing the page. The KickStart is over 150% funded, let's see what happens over the next 6-12 months. Jrv (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose - The Founder has become a Shuttleworth Foundation Fellow, TED Senior Fellow as external validation. (biased opinion by marcin_ose, founder)
- Oppose - I'd agree that the article does not have to include promotional material, but it is more than just a garage project and it's open nature makes it notable because it involves people from all over. I'd focus on shortening the article or cleaning it up and updating links. Even in it's failure, would I not want to be able to read a brief article on how it failed? How long it lasted? Or better yet, how it changed the world? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia, not an advertising platform for nascent wannabe almost-projects. Encyclopedias are for things that are already significant. If it ever actually is anything significant then we add it okay? Until then it does not belong in an encyclopedia.
Look it's not clear how exactly the deletion procedure is supposed to work, even after reading the deletion policy and related pages. How do you achieve consensus if others just object and then leave, or are recalcitrant fanbois of the project that disregard the established notability or suitable-for-an-encyclopedia guidelines and just vote for what they want even though they can't come up with a permissible reason to? Also how does the administrator know when the discussion has achieved consensus/how do you attract their attention when it's time to delete? I'll put the template back up and we'll see what happens, I apologize if this is not procedure but it is not clear what procedure is so we'll have to make do.
To clarify my position, many parts of this article are not founded on anything with real sources behind it. It's all hype and no substance; as I said nothing has actually been accomplished, and the wikipedia article helps perpetuate this false image. This doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, so let's get rid of it and stop giving it an unwarranted veneer of legitimacy.22.214.171.124 (talk)
NPR = real source Recalcitrant Fanbois
The project has generated over $500,000 since November 2011. It has also produced verifiable equipment that works. These are definitely accomplishments that are directly inline with the projects goals. I have personally replicated the CEB machine and use it. It's an evolving project that I feel is worthy of being mentioned here. JamesWSlade (talk) 02:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Exactly, you are a fan. You are clearly heavily biased. There is nobody defending it that is not. There is no evidence, first of all that any of the equipment actually works adequately in the real world and even if it did, there are plenty of hackerspaces and projects that have produced one or two minor things like a CEB machine or whatever and are not included in any encyclopedia. Raising money is not in itself an accomplishment. It does not in itself mean this is notable. It just means it got some free publicity and some suckers. I repeat: when it is something, then it can go in an encyclopedia. You have to earn a place in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not for advertizing by fanbois. Putting the template back up. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 17:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
The "Global Village Construction Set" (GVCS) of 50 machines is claimed to be what is required to bootstrap a modern civilization (see OSE Wiki Main Page). The Open Source Ecology wiki does not seem to contain an explanation of how these 50 machines were selected. It also does not have an analysis (that I can find) that shows these are the necessary starter kit, what is the right sequence to build them in, or what are the correct sizes to use. As near as I can tell, the project founder just picked these 50 machines without doing a thorough engineering analysis. Since building the GVCS is the main goal of the Open Source Ecology project, I would lay the criticism that the project is on a shaky foundation. In the interest of full disclosure, I participated in the project to the extent of being active in their forum, and contributing to their wiki. After a few months it became clear to me the project lacked a sound basis and was making unrealistic claims, and was not making noticeable progress, so I stopped participating. I still think the *idea* of a basic set of machines is valid, if better implemented.
In terms of the article, it uncritically accepts the claims of the project, fails to note the relationships to the concept of replicating systems, or to utopian communities, and misses an important critique of the project by Business Week. Danielravennest (talk) 01:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- These questions are legitimate questions. How these 50 GVCS machines were selected? What is the right sequence to build them in? or what are the correct sizes to use? If OSE want to attract more supporters and fans, OSE should give good answers or a thorough engineering analysis. Joeinwiki (talk) 06:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
The project looked pretty viable to me but I think I've found some valid criticisms. This critique was pretty solid: it identifies some hypocrisy which needs to be discussed, namely failing to document and elaborate upon in an open, comprehensive manner the times when GVCS tools did fail. Another source, this time critiquing the leadership aspects, is the object gorilla blog. The argument is along the lines of open source ecology suffering from Founder's syndrome - more on that here.
Another argument made at object gorilla is that "[Marcin] stints a little bit on the argument for open-sourcing that technology -- after all, for-profit corporations and governments have produced the vast majority of innovation throughout human history, and that has turned out pretty well so far", but there are plenty of arguments against competition, and the sentence isn't contextually verified - it's more of an anecdote.
This page might need a 'criticisms' subheading. My justification for this is that the article presents open source ecology as an omnipotent ecological saviour, and while I have no issues with the core idea, it would certainly be fallacious and untruthful to fail to address allegations of something like hypocrisy. However, being a Wikipedia newbie, I'm not sure about the validity of those sources I provided. Thennicke (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Just a relevant source dump while I think of it: http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Category:Critiques Thennicke (talk) 08:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)