Talk:Open-source religion

On 2005 August 28 these links were added to the Open Source Religion Page:

So, What's Wicca? <http://willowbough.org/wicca101.html> A description of Wicca as an open source religion.

Universal Life Church < http://ulc.org/> Pre-dates the concept of open source religion while still being an exemplar of the ideas behind an open source community.

Principia Discordia <http://www.principiadiscordia.com/> Also pre-dates the concept of open source religion while holding tenets strongly indicative of an open source structure.

On 2005 September 05 these links were removed. This was the reason given:

05:06, 5 September 2005 Kriegman (\u2192External links - LACK of structure or form
and the absolute lack of a need for any agreement found in Wicca, ULC, and Discordianism
is not consistent with "open source" as defined in the wikipedia)

This is the description of Open Source on Wikipedia:

products whose sources or design documents are open for use, modification and redistribution, often open source software;
a license used to give such permission;
that which relates to open source such as the open source movement and culture.
a radically transparent procedure or process, as typical of open source software projects;
information available to the general public (see open source intelligence)

The advantage of open source products is that they are understandable, modifiable, duplicatable, or simply accessible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source

This is the description of Wicca on <http://willowbough.org/wicca101.html>

"How does this apply to Wicca, puns on "open sourcery" aside? Religions differ not only in the number of gods they acknowledge or the holidays they celebrate, but also in the extent to which they allow folks to tinker with the system. Christianity, for example, has the Bible for a huge part of its "source code." Recognize part of that book as holy, but not other parts, and you wind up with a religious schism -- Roman Catholicism vs. Protestantism. (The Roman Catholic Bible includes the books of Judith, Tobit, Baruch, and others which Protestant Bibles do not.) The problems get even worse if you try to add to the source code: not only is the Book of Mormon recognized as scripture only by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (aka the Mormons), many mainline Christian denominations don't consider the LDS church to be a branch of Christianity.

"Wicca, in contrast, doesn't have any one book of source code, any immutable book of scripture. Sure, there are texts that most folks appreciate and refer to: the Charge of the Goddess and the Wiccan Rede may be two of the more familiar. But since there is no One True Scripture, the degree to which any one book represents Wicca has to be judged on external verifiability (this author claims that silver is used to represent the Moon because the Moon really is made of silver, and NASA is covering things up? Hmm, maybe I'll give that book a miss...), the degree to which it agrees with other good books (leading to the question, what books do you start from?), and what works. Even the "most common texts" are revised and re-written, in prose and rhyme, with or without archaisms, with almost infinite variations on the theme."

I would suggest that perhaps the reasons for the Kriegman edit show a lack of understanding of those religions being disincluded from this page. Their removal cuts off the possible consideration and discussion of the different ways open source applies to numerous religions, by removing examples of those religions who have independently developed an open source ethic without previous awareness of the open source computing community.

Kriegman responds to 203.113.193.101 (9/11/05): I believe you have only taken some of the features of open source projects mentioned in the Wikipedia article, albeit the most ideal outcomes produced by open source models. Also acknowledged in the Wikipedia article (as well as in seen in Wikipedia, Linux, Apache, and OpenOffice development, some of the best known open source projects) are models for development of the project on which collaboration is occurring. Without such models for governance and decision making about proposed changes, what you would have would merely be the publication of a Wikipedia article under the GFDL, or some software code without copyright. Yes, a lack of copyright, making code or text freely available, is part of what open source means, but surely not all of it. In such a limited definition, since there is no copyright on many versions of the Bible and anyone can come along and write any revision or new version with any additions or deletions they wish to make, one could claim that Christianity---a project with a remarkably closed source history of authoritarian development with wars fought over wording changes---is "open source."

Let's take a look at the list of features you selected as indicating open source (and they do capture important parts of the definition):

products whose sources or design documents are open for use, modification and redistribution, often open source software;

a license used to give such permission;

information available to the general public (see open source intelligence)
These three are all applicable to quite a few versions of the Bible and any uncopyrighted material or material whose copyright has expired. (The copyright expiration gives the "permission.")

The next feature is vague and we would need to go to the articles on OS movement and culture to see if their essence applies to the three examples whose deletion you are protesting (after reading those articles, in my opinion, it does not):

that which relates to open source such as the open source movement and culture.

Finally, there is another vaguely presented notion that is, in fact, defined later in the Wikipedia article on open source:

a radically transparent procedure or process, as typical of open source software projects;

The "radically transparent procedure or process" refers to the development method, the governance and decision making. For example, the structure set up for and the editing rules that this dialogue is part of.

I can now restate my claim that the article you refer to on Wicca (as well as the other two) describes no decision making process, procedure, governance, or rules for decision making. The article is merely one person's opinion in which the lack of structure or governance in Wicca is equated with the open source model. While there is some overlap between the lack of Wiccan structure or restrictions on the use of Wiccan notions and the free use found in genuine open source models, the author is simply noting the overlap. The same overlap exists between open source projects and anything whose copyright has expired and is now in the "public domain."

Before deleting the Wicca reference, I read the article referred to as well as exploring links to the other two "religions." Indeed, about the latter, I read quite a bit and learned more than I wanted to know about them (though the Discordia was somewhat entertaining). I believe that an attempt to engage in dialogue should be made before one concludes that my action was caused by my "lack of understanding." While such a lack may exist, without attempting such a dialogue, how would you know?

Edit of links to Wicca, ULC, and Principia Discordia

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. As such it specifies that the articles here must simply report on accepted knowledge, rather than initiate new knowledge and definitions. These articles must also be from a neutral point of view and supported by reference.

In this case all religious groups calling themselves open source should be reported upon and any conclusions based upon the nature of these groups should only be reported when they have been made in sources other than Wikipedia. To define what open source religion should be, then only report upon those religious groups who fit into that definition would be to go against the policies set out by Wikipedia and to restrict greater knowledge of this field.

Kriegman again responds to 203.113.193.101 (9/12/05): I must say that I find it to be a fantastic claim that what people call themselves is in fact the case and must be reported as so. One might be able to make the case that we should describe what people claim to be. The fact that they make a claim may be true without the content of the claim having any validity. For example, some developers of Intelligent Design theory claim that it is science. While the absurd claim could be part of a description of an article on Intelligent Design---i.e., the fact that some of its developers make that claim---it would be absurd to report that "ID is a scientific theory that ..."

And I was not "defining what open source should be." I was using the definition that has been developed through actual usage of the term. See my response to 203.113.193.101, above, where I went through the definition that had been independently presented in Wikipedia.

I must say that I find it to be a fantastic claim that what people call themselves is in fact the case and must be reported as so. I didn't read it that way; I read it as more like "religions that refer to themselves as open source should be referred to here in some way"... which by extension would also mean "and then briefly elaborated on, including whether or not the religion does in fact appear to meet the requirements for an 'open source' religion". Similar to how Mormons aren't considered "Christians" by a large number of people professing to be Christians, but consider themselves to be a Christian sect; you'd want to mention both sides of the disagreement or illogical bits when referencing them, but you couldn't really leave them completely out of articles on Christianity as a whole. By the way, please sign your posts at the BOTTOM of said post, as tis' a little less confusing, OK? Runa27 22:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links Edit

To: Dan Kriegman

Some links have been made at the bottom of the page to the handful of other religions that have also taken on the moniker of "open source". I did not change your article. I simply wish to open the discussion by adding a few links to other religions who have either explicitly linked themselves to open source or appear to have independently developed a similar ethic. Reading those links does not constitute a significant understanding of those religions in order to make a judgement as to whether they should be allowed to call themselves "open source", but it does initiate possible enquiry. It is the policy of Wikipedia that articles be collaboratively developed. I do not believe that you are allowing for collaboration in this case.

Articles have to begin somewhere. So, it is acceptable to simply initiate a page provided you are willing to allow others to work upon it. At this stage the Open Source Religion page has some serious flaws.

This page is not from a Neutral Point of View

Wikipedia insists that articles in its encyclopedia be from a neutral viewpoint. You are the founder of Yoism. An article from the Boston Globe reporting this is found on your own site [[1]] The article you have written here only speaks specifically about Yoism, and only quotes from Yoist sources that you created. Douglas Rushkoff's Open Source Judaism has been reported upon in numerous news sources. It should have been discussed within this article.

This page appears to be original research

No articles from peer reviewed journals or books by recognised experts are referred to concerning the phenomenon of open source religion. This appears to be the first such article on this subject, and its purpose seems to be one of validating and promoting the article writer's specific religion.

This article is unverifiable

Sweeping statements are made about both religion in general and open source religion specifically without any independent verification by reference to respected academics, books or journals. Where are the quotes from or references to peer-reviewed academic journals such as Parabola, The Journal for Cultural and Religious Theory, Numen, and more?

My sense is that at this stage unless a more neutral position is taken on describing Open Source Religion, the information on this page is too obscure to warrant a place within the Wikipedia.

Eriostemon 02:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kriegman responds to Eriostemon (9/14/05):

I will try to respond to each of your points. First, an encyclopedia article is supposed to present an accurate picture of human knowledge, belief, and understanding, as best they can be determined. To say that these other religions have similar features to what I would call true open source religions (such as Yoism, Open Source Theology's Christianity or Rushkoff's Judaism) is not the same as saying that they are open source religions. All open source projects that have become known as such (as differentiated from material that is simply not copyrighted or that is in the public domain) are collaborations made by a group of independent people. Each of them, e.g., Linux, Wikipedia, OpenOffice, Apache, has some system and rules for making decisions about the project's development. Without such a system---which can be a benign dictator (as it appears to be in Linux and in the open source religion called "Open Source Religion")---how would you differentiate uncopyrighted material from an open source project?

I saw nothing in any of the three religions you added to the article to suggest any such system for development. To say that they allow free use of the material and in that aspect they include an important component of open source creations would be factual. But you listed them as examples of open source religions, meaning open source collaborative projects, which I do not believe they are. Indeed, they don't even describe themselves as such, other than that one commentator's statements about Wicca. And your critique of my using my investigation of the religions to determine if they are open source is baffling. What is the point of having references? It is so that people can go to the material and see if what is said in the article about that material is factual. That is precisely what I did.

Second, what is not NPOV in the article? While you are appearing to label "bias" the distinction I am making between material in the public domain and true open source projects, what else is not NPOV? Yes, I am a founder of Yoism and my interest in Yoism and in Open Source Religion are closely related. But most major contributors to articles have some vested interest in the subject. Rather than spotting my interest and assuming it is bias, please point out any bias, other than the distinction between open source and uncopyrighted. That I didn't take quotations from Rushkoff's Judaism (about which I know a little but not much) has nothing to do with bias. I have no expertise about his creation. I assume that someone who knows about it will add quotes from it (and many other sources). Clearly, I would not object to that or try to control the content.

Personally, I see little about the Open Source Religion religion (mentioned above) that fits with my sense of open source projects. (I wonder if you are its founder.) But it is included because (whether, in my opinion, it operates as an open source project or not) it is intentionally modeled on and built around open source notions (as opposed to one Wiccan noting that Wicca is somewhat like open source projects) that are built into its core. It is clearly not for me to determine what is "good" open source (according to me) and belongs in the article. But it is incumbent on all who edit the article to make sure examples fit the basic form of open source as it has been defined in identifiable open source projects and sources such as Wikipedia itself.

Third, how can there be articles from "peer reviewed books by recognized experts" when the topic is a new development? I have had many of my articles (in psychology and evolution) published in peer reviewed journals and edited books. And I have been a peer reviewer and/or editor of a half dozen established journals. So, I know quite a bit about the process. IMNSHO I just happen to be one of the "experts" on this particular topic. (But in this area, that isn't saying much as there isn't much competition in the field yet.) This doesn't give me the right to bias the discussion or to dictate the article's content. But I don't see where I am not responding to the content of your concerns. Indeed, you have made editing changes to the page that I did not particularly like but I felt I had no right to change them based on my "feelings."

Fourth, the "unverifiable" critique is similarly impossible to respond to. A phenomenon that has just been defined and described---indeed, one that has just come into being---can hardly be "verified by reference to respected academics, books or journals." Indeed, the Supreme Court in its Daubert decision modified the Frye standards of evidence for science. In Frye, the standard for admissibility as valid science for courtroom testimony was whether a theory has achieved "general acceptance" in the relevant scientific community. In Daubert, responding to the rapid pace of scientific development, the court recognized that some valid theories may be too new to have been peer reviewed in standard publications. Thus, Daubert makes it incumbent on trial judges to review the evidence themselves and to determine if there is a basis for considering the science valid. That is what we have to do in this case, and in the case of innumerable Wikipedia articles on topics that are new and many more topics that just do not get focused on in peer reviewed journals.

Finally, you reiterate your claim about bias and non-NPOV. Other than noting that
I have a vested interest in the topic (as do most major contributors to an article)

I have, thus far, been stressing the particular distinction that I believe defines the essence of this article and that irks you (that "open source" should not be conflated with "uncopyrighted" or "in the public domain," concepts that existed long before the invention of open source collaboration), and

that I have not put into the article more detailed material and examples from open source religions about which I have no expertise (leaving that to others to add relevant material) and have only put in material from the one that I know well

what non-NPOV are you seeing in the article? Please point it out and help correct it.

Edit

I did some work on this, sounds like a personal essay at times, which I couldn't think a way out of. I constructed an introduction for readers new to the topic, but I feel this still needs some work. 82.25.75.242 00:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Source for definition of "Open source religion"?

The article begins:

Open source religion is based on the extension of the open source principles to the areas of religious experience, religious cosmology, and religious systems of belief, as an extension of the general development from purely technical open source software via open source movement and into the open source culture in general.

Can someone give a reference for this? To me, it smacks of original research. Unless someone can provide a link that states that the scholarly/technical definition of "open source religion" requires that the religion be very similar to open-source software, I submit that Discordianism, Universal Life Church, Wicca, and the like are also "open source". If there is no definition widely accepted in appropriate scholarly sources, I think that NPOV dictates that we discuss multiple possible interpretations of this definition, and should discuss religions such as Discordianism here on the grounds that they satisfy at least some definition of open-source. Colin M. 09:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Before wondering whether this article is NPOV, I think it's relevant to ask if it is encyclopedic. If it is not, then the mere fact of including it is POV. squell 01:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A description of a phenomenon must appear in some paper publication before it is put in the Wikipedia? Certainly that isn't true for news or other recent events. And there are MANY web phenomenon that are described in the Wikipedia with references to web addresses for verification of the existence and nature of the phenomena. Is that not done in this article? At the end of this article, there are six external links to examples of the phenomena described in the article. Each of these examples (in marked contrast to Discordianism, Universal Life Church, and Wicca) specifically attempt to form a religious meme system by employing open source methods intentionally (i.e., they describe and claim to be) modeled on open source software projects and/or the Wikipedia. This is a new phenomenon and it is well documented in the examples given.

I have checked the links. Judging by activity, most are somewhat (or highly) of a 'personal webpage' nature, except for 'Open Source Theology'. If I google on the OSODG, I mostly find inflammatory USENet discussions about who 'owns' the Golden Dawn. Or something. Do you really consider the OSODG representative? squell 20:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Open Source Theology is a good example of the phenomenon, as is Yoism. I don't particularly like OSOGD or think it is a good example of an open source religion, or at least not one that exemplifies the importance of what this new phenomena can evolve into. But what "I really consider" isn't the point, is it? It is a religioun, of sorts, and it is intentionally modeled on some conception of open source development, i.e., it is evidence of the phenomenon described in this article: people trying to develop religion who are inspired to copy, model after, or at least claim similarity to the open source movement. Yoism, the one I am invested in, was recently hacked and our web site is down as we are switching to a new server. When it comes back up (within a week?), I hope you will take a look at it. Kriegman 22:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too interested in Yoism itself, sorry - ~~since there's already Yoism, I'm not assuming any problem with it~~. Since I'm assuming you're the major contributor to this article, I do think what "you really consider" is relevant. If you think OSODG is not a good example of open source religion, you should leave it out so as to not confuse us ;) squell 23:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strike-out considering recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoism. squell 03:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are thousands of Wikipedia articles about things that are too new to have been and/or do not get written about in peer reviewed literature or authoritative news sources. The linked references in this article can be followed and the article revised based on whether an editor finds the article to comport with the phenomena found at those links. This is a verifiable, real phenomenon with an evidentiary basis, at least to the degree of much of the content of articles like open source culture, in which this article is linked as an example of what the open source movement has spawned in other areas of human culture. In the Open Source Culture article, I can find dozens of statements that are obviously true with no referents to paper versions of the notions. The statements can be investigated following links that are or can be provided with no need to say "This is so because it was in an article in the NY Times."

For another example, consider this early (first?) stab at the "Blog" article. It is almost identical in form to this early version of Open Source Religion. It could have been called "original research" for the same reasons. But it, too, provided an evidentiary basis (its examples) from the Internet. It eventually evolved into Blog, a fully documented mature Wikipedia article. It would have been absurd to delete the article because the original author could not find or did not have access to paper print versions of each statement she wrote, statements that were fully verifiable by following the links she provided. Kriegman 16:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the 'original research' template a bit, so that articles tagged with it now appear in a Cleanup category as well, so it's more than just an annoying notice now. squell 20:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OSR & NPOV

If Open Source Religion is a growing phenomenon then the evidence for that cultural phenomenon can be presented. I believe the evidence is plentiful and we should bring it all to the table.

NPOV states that no group can claim ownership of a term. Therefore the page should state that there is a difference of opinion on the issue of inclusiveness of the definition and what characterizes "Open Source Religion".

--Rob Levy (Yo practictioner)

Original Research & New Phenomena

If people are uncomfortable with the NPOV of the article, why not simply edit it? Why waste so much time in talk mode?

At what point are new phenomena worth reporting on? It seems clear, from the external links, that Open Source Religions have emerged on the scene, an article reporting this factually is a valuable contribution to an encyclopedia of human knowledge.

For clarity's sake it makes sense to report those religions which explictly call themselves Open Source. Religions that have aspects of open source could be mentioned in the article as historical precursors to the phenomena of OSR -- but as Kriegman points out they don't contain all the elements. It does the reader a disservice to bundle them into a list of open source religions.

-Orion OrionK 14:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the Original Research tag

The article has had numerous external references added since the OR tag was added. While still in need of further development, it seems like the OR tag should be removed. Unless there is an objection, I will remove the tag in a few days after there has been some time for discussion. Kriegman 03:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Principia Discordia

I noted this reference, which see Principia Discordia as an early example of the open source movement - not just of open source religion:

"Discordianism and the concept of KopyLeft go hand in hand. Although just a small part of the counter-culture gestalt, I believe that the Principia Discordia was probably one of the earliest expressions and strongest champions of this idea, which has since seen such concepts as the "Open Source Software" initiative, with endeavours such as the Linux Operating System."

(Swabey, 2002)

http://www.lazaruscorporation.co.uk/v4/articles/principiadiscordia.php

-- Beardo 13:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

It is not enough to list references at the bottom of the page, just because these mention this subject or dicuss it. We need inline citations for the material in this article. See WP:CITE#How_and_where_to_cite_sources ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Yoism

This article is really about "Yoism". Moved. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page destroyed and recreated

Not knowing the history of the two pages, Jossi redirected this page to a Yoism article that he created from this page. The Yoism article was thenb deleted by someone and the redirect from this article then went nowhere. The Yoism article is protected to prevent any editing of it, so the only thing I could do was recreate this page. Kriegman 12:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this is not the way to avoid page protection,. The reason for the move is that this article is about somthing called "Yoism" and not about someting called "Open source religion", as there are no other known examples of that type of "religion". ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Mattisse

Yo Mattisse, you wrote "This is Kriegman at work again . . ." Please note that Goethean removed all of my unreferenced/unsupported material from this article, cutting it down to almost a stub. While it is true that I then made five edits, not one changed the content or made any significant modifications to Goethean's editing. All of my recent edits were either minor (grammar) or supplemented Goethean's edits by finding the missing links he referred to. That's all I did. While I believe that after Goethean's edits, the article is now well referenced with no claims that are not supported by reputable external sources, I think—and if you take another look, you might agree—that it would be unfair to characterize my recent input as "This is Kriegman at work again . . ." with the implication that my current editing input is the same as earlier work on this (or other) articles. With these thoughts in mind, would you be willing to take another look and reconsider your view of my input into this article? Kriegman 12:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broken link to Boston Globe article

Mattisse wrote:

That does seem much clearer and better referenced. I haven't finished checking the whole article out yet -- but your second footnote doesn't work. Since it is a Boston Globe article, maybe you can get it directly from them. Some articles they leave up forever. Mattisse 13:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, that wasn't my second footnote. I noticed that it didn't work and I didn't know what to do about it. We could just list the reference/source without a link to the actual article as apparently the Globe did not leave it up. Alternatively, there is a copy of the Boston Globe article on the Yoism website that could be linked to. I didn't dare place such a link in the article as I thought it would be seen as another attempt to promote/link to Yoism. This is the link so you can view the article and put the link into OSR if you feel it is appropriate. (I'll place this note on the OSR talk page as I did with my earlier comment.) Kriegman 13:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

REFERENCES

At one point the references were actually to be found at the end of this article, and the links to them worked. What happened? Why don't the links work any more? OrionK 14:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That happens when a closing ref tag is left off. It's been fixed. :-) —Hanuman Das 02:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discordianism is not an example of an Open Source Religion

Open source has different aspects to it, only one of which is that the content is freely available. By that definition, anything that has entered the public domain, e.g., the collected works of Shakespeare or Charles Dickens, are all "open source." However, while that is an aspect of open source, that is not what open source means, i.e., it does not mean uncopyrighted. Anyone can modify Shakespeare's words and publish them. But if a GROUP of people were doing a systematic modification and had a system for COLLECTIVE participation and the original work and any product produced from the collective effort were FREELY available, THEN the collaborative revision could be seen as an open source revision of Shakespeare.

While freedom to use and revise the content is ONE aspect of open source works, what makes a software project like Linux, Apache, or a text compilation product, like Wikipedia, "open source" is a system for collective modification and revision of a single product. Discordianism---which to many people is a tongue-in-cheek "religion"---hardly has such a system as Discordians are noted for their individuality and non-adherence to any rule structure.

First, please sign your comments - reading a talk page like this and running into the same argument being made for the, what, fourth time, but unsigned, makes it look worse than sock puppetry. I would, however, like to comment that the Open Source definitions, while fairly acceptable I suppose, seem to fail to address some aspects of Discordianism. For example, it would seem to be a fairly strong tenet of Discordianism that disagreement, not agreement, is the marker of high quality contributions. Does that make it not OS, or just part of a larger set of endeavors, of which OS is a narrower, more specific kind?

Anyway, my thought on the article? Keep it short until there is something interesting to report, in the real world. human 04:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative meaning of "Open source religion"

The following was just added to the article. I moved it here. It suggests a need for an entirely different article, about software as religion:

Open source is not the only software related religion: it is possible to find references, stating that Apple has one, so does the Java community, Oracle, IBM and Google<ref>[http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2007/05/why_doesnt_micr.html Why Doesn't Microsoft Have A Cult Religion?] </ref> (Microsoft seems not having any).

Thoughts, anyone?

--Orlady (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if not to look that way, I would consider this article a vanity page. Where is the prayer, where is the ritual, where are the religious laws? Do you treat programming, beer events and coding style rules as these? There are no any talks in the official GNU, Linux kernel or Apache pages where they would say they have they own religion. If any projects that do this ever existed they likely make an absolute minority and do not deserve the separate article at all. We can only talk about the Open Source religion if we use this word is in some much wider sense - this is how I was understanding this in the beginning. Then the Apple, Oracle, IBM and Google religions are equally relevant and largely the same thing. I agree that it would make sense to write a combined article. Audriusa (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe you have read the article. This article is NOT about a cult religion focused on open source software. Rather, it is about the use of open source methodologies in the creation and development of religious belief systems. --Orlady (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did. Open Source in a large scale have never associated itself with any kind of a religion and does not have the necessary attributes to qualify itself as religion. If anybody does, this is such a minority that the article should not be notable. Your several listed strange communities mean very little in comparison the official position of Apache, Red Hat, Sun Microsystems or Novell Audriusa (talk) 06:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat the point in a different form: The use of the term "open source" in this article has almost nothing to do with software. [Please don't look at me to explain this concept in detail. I have this article on my watchlist, but as with most of what's on my watchlist, I have no personal involvement with the topic.] --Orlady (talk) 14:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me not to, so I do not do... STFW about the meaning of the Open source at least in Wikipedia. Audriusa (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

general notability attacks

As of 24 March 2008, there are 20,600 Google matches for "open source religion", including referenced articles in Boston Globe, Wired, Discover, and others. Just what would make this topic fail to meet general notability guidelines? I say that's because the concept is under attack by most other factions (with hubris like "our way is the only way"). Here are some links...

-- 99.231.208.23 (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added alternative links to the LA Times article to show that the content is not self-published, not vanity, not a fake. This shows, the topic meets all notability guidelines including reliable primary and secondary sources, and in fact so does yoism specifically, and also Daniel Kriegman himself. -- 99.231.208.23 (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]