Edge Rewrite
everything Source code View original
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a22992cd4e81dfff

Jump to content

Talk:Open-source software/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Requested move 13 October 2022

Latest comment: 3 years ago13 comments8 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 13:14, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Open-source software → Open source software – "open source software" is the more common spelling in the English language. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=open-source+software%2Copen+source+software&year_start=1970&year_end=2019&case_insensitive=on&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t4%3B%2Copen%20-%20source%20software%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bopen%20-%20source%20software%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BOpen%20-%20source%20software%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BOpen%20-%20Source%20Software%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Copen%20source%20software%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bopen%20source%20software%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BOpen%20Source%20Software%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BOpen%20source%20software%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BOpen%20Source%20software%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BOPEN%20SOURCE%20SOFTWARE%3B%2Cc0#t4%3B%2Copen%20-%20source%20software%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bopen%20-%20source%20software%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BOpen%20-%20source%20software%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BOpen%20-%20Source%20Software%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Copen%20source%20software%3B%2Cc0%3 Llightex (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Jack Frost (talk) 05:01, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

It's also used most commonly by the actual OSS community. https://github.com/open-source, https://opensource.guide/, https://opensource.org/
Oppose: The numbers are always going to be skewed towards "open source" because of lazy writers: Hitting the space bar is more convenient than reaching for the hyphen. I prefer "open-source" because in larger expressions like "free and open-source software" it makes clear that the two words "open" and "source" belong together and form a single adjective. Microsoft's style guide and Compute Hope's advice happen to align perfectly with my view. —Dexxor (talk) 07:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Comment: Several other articles would also have to be moved to maintain consistency, some of which can be found at this 12-year-old discussion. I found some more: Open-source hardware, Open-source bounty, Open-source license, Open-source governance, Open-source ventilator, List of open-source health software, and Open-source Unicode typefaces. —Dexxor (talk) 07:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
@Dexxor, @Extraordinary Writ: I don't think it's because of "lazy writers", but rather a genuine difference in practice in spelling it with a hyphen versus not. For example, Google's style guide advocates not using hyphens (https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/comms/style-guide); Apache doesn't use hyphens (https://www.apache.org/); OpenSSF doesn't use a hyphen (https://openssf.org/); neither has OSI even as far back 2002 (https://web.archive.org/web/20021004120021/http://www.opensource.org/index.php); and neither has Congress done so (https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/4913/text).
When choosing which practice to use (hyphen or not?) I believe the more common term should be used. The same test should be applied to the examples you cite for consistency ("open-source hardware", "open-source bounty", etc.). Some of them ("open-source hardware" for example) may need to be moved, but others will likely stay the same. Simply put, by picking the most common usage, you can stick with both articles named, for example, "open source software" and "open-source ventilator". Llightex (talk) 01:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
For your point about "free and open-source software"; we may prefer a particular spelling to avoid ambiguity (just like some prefer to use the Oxford comma), but I don't think that's relevant if we have an overriding common usage. In this case, if you look at the n-grams, "free and open source software" is used far more -- "free and open-source software" does not even make the n-gram lists because it's so infrequently used. The GNU.org open source philosophy essays (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.en.html) also use the unhyphenated term. Llightex (talk) 01:46, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per MOS:HYPHEN. Based on our general article title formatting policies and basic English grammar rules, compound adjectives like this are generally hyphenated. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support: Wikipedia has no firm rules, when WP:COMMONNAME would conflict with formatting policies, it makes sense to me to give the common name policy precedence. PhotographyEdits (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The MOS applies to article titles, and MOS:HYPHEN makes clear that compound modifiers such as this one generally need a hyphen. Personally I'm skeptical of the notion that COMMONNAME should take precedence on style issues (see here for some differing perspectives on that question), but even accepting that it should, the purpose of COMMONNAME is to produce titles that meet the criteria, and in this case the hyphenated version is a bit more recognizable and much more consistent (see Dexxor's comments above) with only a slight loss (at worst) in the naturalness department. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
    I agree. It's like when we decide whether to use a hyphen or a dash in a title. Or like how we don't generally capitalize short prepositions in titles even if a majority of sources do because of our general article title formatting rules, we also generally hyphenate compound adjectives in titles such as this regardless of what a majority of sources do. This is a formatting/English grammar issue, not a WP:COMMONNAME issue. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:50, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per MOS:HYPHEN. There is nothing magically special about this case, and WP doesn't care whether other publishers under their own style guides know how to hyphenate properly or not.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:19, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It is a misery though. My understanding of the hyphen rules is: "open-source software" is software with the attribute of being open-source. "Open source software" would be something different, software about the phenomenon dubbed "open source". This distinction becomes more apparent when you turn to other uses, e.g. "open-source strategies" vs "open source strategies". The first are strategies that are available as open source, the second are strategies about open source, the phenomenon. Open-source tooling is tools that are open source, open source tooling are tools for open source (like GitHub, which is not provided as open-source software). Dirk Riehle (talk) 12:50, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request add info

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion

Hi, I am a paid student researcher at the University of Virginia. I have some content I would like to add to the article. Please review it at User:Policy1257/sandbox.

If anyone has questions about the project then check out this link Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Virginia/2023 Wiki99 for open source software Policy1257 (talk) 16:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


Propose changes to section

I propose to change this section Open-source_software#Development_model With this text:

Comments? --Policy1257 (talk) 17:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I made the changes, anyone can see them at this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Open-source_software&diff=1196813666&oldid=1194558578

--Policy1257 (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to delete poor references

Review of the citations in english wikipedia's page for open source software

I have evaluated the references used in this article and propose to start removing some of the out of date or not useful ones. What are anyone's thoughts on this? --Policy1257 (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Rewrite of comparison section

I propose a rewrite to the comparison section.

Thoughts or questions? --Policy1257 (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I implemented the changes, anyone can see them at this link https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Open-source_software&diff=prev&oldid=1204997356

--Policy1257 (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)


Proposal to add a section of representative software examples

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I think we should add a section showing some examples of notable open source software projects. Please take a look at my page for a draft.

User:Policy1257/sandbox#Representative Examples of Open Source Software Projects Policy1257 (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Such lists of 'samples' inevitably grow out of control as people all add their favorite software projects to the list. We are better off without it. MrOllie (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Good point! I will hold off on adding this for now. Policy1257 (talk) 20:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Rewrite of the history section

I propose a rewrite of the history section, instead titling it Open Software Movement and splitting it into two categories, history and future. I also propose we move it further down the page, before the comparison section, as generally history sections come later in articles.

Thoughts or questions? --Policy1257 (talk) 10:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I implemented the changes, anyone can see them here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Open-source_software&diff=prev&oldid=1204999963

Thanks! --Policy1257 (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to rewrite sections

I propose a opportunities for participation section to replace the current applications and adoptions section and the addition of a legal and economic issues section.

Thoughts or questions? --Policy1257 (talk) 16:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Policy1257: I don't like the first paragraph because you defining new terms but aren't using them below. It also feels academic and out-of-place on Wikipedia. In terms of style, please see WP:LOWERCASE and MOS:STRAIGHT and replace external links like Free Software Foundation with wikilinks like Free Software Foundation. Also, you don't need to ask on the talk page before making an edit, be bold! —Dexxor (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback, I tweaked some things after reading your comment. I am a paid student editor so I would prefer to get feedback before adding anything! Policy1257 (talk) 15:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Society and Culture

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Demographics

Despite being able to collaborate internationally, open source software contributors were found to mostly be located in large clusters such as Silicon Valley that largely collaborate within themselves.[1] Possible reasons for this phenomenon may be that the OSS contributor demographic largely works in software, meaning that the OSS geographic location is closely related to that dispersion and collaborations could be encouraged through work and social networks.[1] Code acceptance can be impacted by status within these social network clusters, creating unfair predispositions in code acceptance based on location.[2] Barriers to international collaboration also include linguistic or cultural differences.[3] Furthermore, each country has been shown to have a higher acceptance rate for code from contributors within their country except India, indicating a bias for culturally similar collaborators.[3]

In 2021, the countries with the highest open source software contributions included the United States, China, Germany, India, and the UK, in that order.[1] The counties with the highest OSS developers per capita from a study in 2021 include, in order, Iceland, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, and Finland, while in 2008 the countries with top amount of estimated contributors in SourceForge were the United States, Germany, United Kingdom, Canada and France.[1] [3] Though there have been several studies done on the distribution and contributions of OSS developers, this is still an open field that can be measured in several different ways.[3] For instance, Information and communication technology participation, population, wealth and proportion of access to the internet have been shown to be correlated with OSS contributions.[3]

Although gender diversity has been found to enhance team productivity, women still face biases while contributing to open source software projects when their gender is identifiable.[4] In 2002, only 1.5% of international open-source software developers were women, while women made up 28% of tech industry roles, demonstrating their low representation in the software field.[5] Despite OSS contributions having no prerequisites, this gender bias may continue to exist due to the common belief of contributors that gender shouldn't matter, and the quality of code should be the only consideration for code acceptance, preventing the community from addressing the systemic disparities in female representation.[5] However, a more recent figure of female OSS participation internationally calculated across 2005 to 2021 is 9.8%, with most being recent contributors, indicating that female participation may be growing.[6]

Motivations

There are many motivations for contributing to the OSS community.[7] For one, it is an opportunity to learn and practice multiple skills such as coding and other technology related abilities, but also fundamental skills such as communication and collaboration and practical skills needed to excel in technology related fields such as issue tracking or version control.[7] Instead of learning through a classroom or a job, learning through contributing to OSS allows participants to learn at their own pace and follow what interests them.[7] When contributing to OSS, you can learn the current industry best practices, technology and trends and even have the opportunity to contribute to the next big innovation as OSS grows increasingly popular within the tech field.[7] Contributing to OSS without payment means there is no threat of being fired, though reputations can take a hit.[7] On the other hand, a huge motivation to contribute to OSS is the reputation gained as you grow your public portfolio.[7]

Disparities

Even though programming was originally seen as a female profession, there remains a large gap in computing.[8] Social identity tends to be a large concern as women in the tech industry face insecurity about attracting unwanted male attention and harassment or being unfeminine in their technology knowledge, having a large impact on confidence.[5] Some male tech participants make clear that they believe women fitting in within the culture is impossible, furthering the insecurity for women and their place in the tech industry.[4] Additionally, even in a voluntary contribution environment like open source software, women tend to end up doing the less technical aspects of projects, such as manual testing or documentation despite women and men showing the same productivity in OSS contributions.[4] Explicit biases include longer feedback time, more scrutinization of code and lower acceptance rate of code.[4] Specifically in the open-source software community, women report that sexually offensive language is common and the women’s identity as female is given more attention that as an OSS contributor[5] Bias is hard to address due to the belief that gender shouldn’t matter, with most contributors feeling that women getting special treatment is unfair and success should be dependent on skill, preventing any changes to be more inclusive.[5]

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Wachs, Johannes; Nitecki, Mariusz; Schueller, William; Polleres, Axel (March 2002). "The Geography of Open Source Software: Evidence from GitHub". Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 176: 121478. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121478.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: article number as page number (link)
  2. ↑ Rastogi, Ayushi; Nagappan, Nachiappan; Gousios, Georgios; van der Hoek, André (2018-10-11). "Relationship between geographical location and evaluation of developer contributions in github". ESEM '18: Proceedings of the 12th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement. ACM: 1–8. doi:10.1145/3239235.3240504. ISBN 978-1-4503-5823-1.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 Gonzalez-Barahona, Jesus M.; Robles, Gregorio; Andradas-Izquierdo, Roberto; Ghosh, Rishab Aiyer (August 2008). "Geographic origin of libre software developers". Information Economics and Policy. 20 (4): 356–363. doi:10.1016/j.infoecopol.2008.07.001.
  4. 1 2 3 4 Bosu, Amiangshu; Sultana, Kazi Zakia (2019). "Diversity and Inclusion in Open Source Software (OSS) Projects: Where Do We Stand?". 2019 ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM). IEEE: 1–11. doi:10.1109/ESEM.2019.8870179. ISBN 978-1-7281-2968-6.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 Nafus, Dawn (June 2012). "'Patches don't have gender': What is not open in open source software". New Media & Society. 14 (4): 669–683. doi:10.1177/1461444811422887. ISSN 1461-4448.
  6. ↑ Trinkenreich, Bianca; Wiese, Igor; Sarma, Anita; Gerosa, Marco; Steinmacher, Igor (2022-10-31). "Women's Participation in Open Source Software: A Survey of the Literature". ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology. 31 (4): 1–37. doi:10.1145/3510460. ISSN 1049-331X.
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Brasseur, V. M. (2018). Forge your future with open source: build your skills, build your network, build the future of technology. The pragmatic programmers. Raleigh, North Carolina: The Pragmatic Bookshelf. ISBN 978-1-68050-301-2.
  8. ↑ Albusays, Khaled; Bjorn, Pernille; Dabbish, Laura; Ford, Denae; Murphy-Hill, Emerson; Serebrenik, Alexander; Storey, Margaret-Anne (April 2021). "The Diversity Crisis in Software Development". IEEE Software. 38 (2): 19–25. doi:10.1109/MS.2020.3045817. ISSN 0740-7459.

|}

Thoughts or questions? --Policy1257 (talk) 12:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to rewrite development tools and edit page layout

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, I propose rewriting the development tools section and combining the current applications and adoption section with the extensions for non-software use section as they are similar topics and small by themselves.

Policy1257 (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Summary of recent work

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, as a student researcher I have implemented a lot of changes recently on the page. As my work on the page comes to an end, I wanted to provide a summary for some of the changes I have made. I have rewrote several sections to provide more sources with up to date information. I have deleted a few small unsourced sections that I felt did not contribute to the article, such as the funding section and practical uses section. I have replaced a few duplicate citations and tried to reduce the amount of sources to focus on academic, peer reviewed information. I have changed the outline of the page to move history and society and culture more toward the bottom for a clearer reading of the page. Finally, I have tried to introduce a few new sections such as the legal and economics section and to fill out a few sections, such as the society and culture section.

Thanks! Policy1257 (talk) 16:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to Delete and Rewrite

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, I propose deleting the open source licensing section under definitions because the information is repeated in the licensing section under legal and economic issues. I also propose deleting the funding section under open source software development because it is pretty short and unsourced. additionally, I propose rewriting the advantages section to give it more sources. Finally, there are a couple of duplicate citations I would like to fix.

@Eddawolfkill I'm a student editor too! Let me know if you have any thoughts on these changes! Policy1257 (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I had different sections I am currently focused on. I noticed we no section in culture not talking about social media with open software. I am currently reviewing this section in more detail about how obs, Shotcut, etc are used in this space. More so since the influx of population use is around 5 billion users in social media. Once I have completed this section and had advisor review my portion to add. I will help with updating some of the citations and review the duplication statements stated. I agree they is redundancy. Eddawolfkill (talk) 05:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: IFS213-Hacking and Open Source Culture

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 January 2024 and 10 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eddawolfkill (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Msowers77.

— Assignment last updated by KAN2035117 (talk) 22:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

"List of trademarked open-source software" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The redirect List of trademarked open-source software has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 20 § List of trademarked open-source software until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Open-source_software/Archive_2&oldid=1302303468"