Bulldozer #4 (Open Source/Upload): How do Wikipedia and Linux challenge traditional knowledge production and commercial software models? What is the essence of this collaborative model?

Okay, asking this question hits on one of the most profound changes the internet has brought about over the past two or three decades. Let me try to explain it in plain language.

# Bulldozer #4 (Open Source/Uploading): How did Wikipedia and Linux challenge traditional knowledge production and commercial software models? What is the essence of this collaborative model?

Imagine how the world worked before Wikipedia and Linux came along:

Want to look up knowledge? You had to buy a thick set of Encyclopedia Britannica. Written by a small group of top experts, rigorously reviewed, authoritative—but dreadfully slow to update and expensive. Knowledge was distributed downward from a sacred temple.
Need a computer operating system? You bought Microsoft Windows. This behemoth employed thousands of engineers working behind closed doors. You couldn't see the code inside, let alone modify it. You were just a paying customer, taking what you got. It was like going to a fancy restaurant; you could only order what was on the menu, with no say in how the kitchen operated.

Then came Wikipedia and Linux, these two "bulldozers." Their methods seemed almost "ridiculous," yet they completely changed the rules of the game.

How exactly did they "bulldoze"?

1. Wikipedia vs. Traditional Encyclopedias (Revolutionizing Knowledge Production)

Traditional Model (Encyclopaedia Britannica): "The Cathedral Model" A handpicked group of "high priests" (scholars and experts) meticulously crafted every word within a closed "cathedral," then decreed it to the faithful (readers). Pros: authoritative, reliable. Cons: slow, expensive, limited scope. Want to look up some obscure anime character? Forget about it.
Wikipedia Model: "The Bazaar Model" It knocked down the cathedral walls, turning knowledge into a huge, noisy, but vibrant "bazaar." Anyone—yes, ordinary people like you and me—could set up a stall (create an entry) or add something to someone else's stall (edit content).
- The Challenge: It directly challenged the core belief that "only experts can produce knowledge." At first, everyone laughed, thinking junk produced by a mob would be useless.
- Why It Succeeded: It established simple rules and community mechanisms. Like "verifiability" (you need sources for your claims), "neutral point of view," and crucially—mass correction. Incorrect information would be seen by hundreds or thousands of eyes and corrected quickly. It turned out that a large enough, open group had a far greater capacity for both error-correction and breadth of knowledge than a small group of experts.

In a nutshell: Wikipedia proved knowledge production doesn't have to be "top-down" bestowal; it can emerge "bottom-up."

2. Linux vs. Traditional Commercial Software (Revolutionizing Software Development)

Traditional Model (Microsoft Windows): "The Black Box Model" The "recipe" (source code) was the company's top-secret, locked away. You bought a prepackaged "dish" (software). You didn't know the ingredients and couldn't tweak it to your taste. This model made money by selling "licenses"; the essence was control.
Linux Model: "The Open Kitchen Model" Linux opened the entire kitchen. The source code (the software "recipe") was fully public. Anyone could look, learn, take it to "start their own kitchen" (create their own version), or even contribute their "new dish" (improved code) back to this public kitchen.
- The Challenge: It challenged the business logic that "software must be secret and sold for profit." Many couldn't see how programmers could make a living by giving stuff away for free.
- Why It Succeeded:
  1. Collective Intelligence ("Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow"): Thousands of programmers scrutinized the code, finding and fixing problems faster than any single company could. This made Linux incredibly stable and secure.
  2. New Business Models: Companies (like Red Hat, Google, Amazon) couldn't make money selling Linux itself, but they could make money by providing services, technical support, and custom development based on Linux. Android is built on Linux, and most of the world's servers run on Linux. They turned "selling dishes" into "selling services" and "running franchise restaurants."

In a nutshell: Linux proved that even the most complex, core technology can be built better through open collaboration, and that this approach fosters a larger, more diverse ecosystem.

What is the essence of this collaborative model?

After explaining all this, what truly lies at the heart of the Wikipedia and Linux model? I think it boils down to the following points; this is where their real disruptive power comes from:

Openness & Transparency This is foundational. Whether it's the edit history of knowledge or the source code of software, everything is publicly visible. This transparency builds trust. You don't have to worry about hidden agendas because everything is out in the open.
Mass Collaboration It leverages the internet's power to connect, enabling thousands, even millions of people globally—many unknown to each other—to work towards a common goal. It breaks down tasks that previously could only be done within a single organization into countless smaller tasks distributed to volunteers worldwide.
Motivation Beyond Money Many participants aren't in it for a salary. Their motivations might include:
- Reputation & Recognition: Becoming a known contributor within the community.
- Personal Need: I needed a specific feature, so I built it myself and shared it.
- Pure Passion & Belief: Believing knowledge/software should be free and being willing to contribute to that ideal.
- Learning & Growth: Using participation in top-tier projects to enhance one's skills.
Decentralized Governance It's not without governance, but the approach is different. There's no traditional CEO giving orders. Wikipedia has administrators and arbitration committees; Linux has Linus Torvalds and maintainers for sub-projects. Power is distributed; decisions are based on community consensus and contribution, not formal positions. It's a form of meritocracy—the more skill and contribution you demonstrate, the more influence you gain.

Ultimately, the essence of this model is:

It believes that by harnessing individual power through open, transparent rules, we can create value far exceeding anything achievable by any closed organization. It uses the power of "community" and "sharing" to deconstruct production methods traditionally monopolized by "capital" and "authority."

This isn't just a technological revolution; it's a profound social and organizational revolution. Today, we see elements of this "uploading/open source" collaborative model everywhere—in ride-sharing (Uber), home-sharing (Airbnb), and even the content ecosystems of short-video platforms.