Wikipedia talk:Not compatible with a collaborative project

Does this essay have to describe Wikipedia as "open source"?

Wikipedia is a libre information encylopedia; it is not "open source". Wikipedia (at least should) stand for freedom and ethics; not mere practical concerns such as something being "technically better". It may be "technically better" to allow free (as in freedom) editing of Wikipedia, because it is then improved upon much more rapidly than it would be otherwise. However, this is not the main purpose of Wikipedia being free as in freedom. It is merely a 'bonus'. Please would you consider not using the term "open source" in this essay? Thanks, DesertPipeline (talk) 12:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

How about "Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia running on open-source software"? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I suggest "Wikipedia is a crowdsourced encyclopedia." The underlying software model isn't essential to the message in the essay. isaacl (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

That is better than my suggestion. You can expect a little something extra in your Wikipedia Paycheck^{[Citation Needed]} this week for that idea. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Guy Macon User:Isaacl: I'm just not sure what's wrong with saying "free encyclopedia". Or "free (as in freedom)". DesertPipeline (talk) 02:33, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Except that Wikipedia isn't free (as in freedom). We have all sorts of policies and guidelines. It is free (as in beer) but so is every other page on the web that isn't behind a paywall. Even the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License contains significant restrictions. "Free encyclopedia" is fine. It's in the logo, after all. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Guy Macon: The "free" in "free encyclopedia" refers to freedom. See Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by DesertPipeline (talk • contribs) 03:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Guy Macon: Pinging again as I forgot to sign. DesertPipeline (talk) 03:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

The point of the essay is that Wikipedia editors must be able to participate in a collaborative project. This is a consequence of Wikipedia being crowdsourced, not that it is zero-cost, or that it uses a libre licence. isaacl (talk) 03:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

For example, with my proposal, the first two sentences would read "Wikipedia is a crowdsourced encyclopedia. By default, it can be edited by anyone in the world with or without creating an account." The second sentence follows naturally from the first. isaacl (talk) 03:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)