Over at Lessig Blog, Jim Wales, of Wikipedia, has taken the reins as the group discusses free culture. Specifically at hand is the fact that he will soon address a conference where he will describe 10 things that ought to be free.
It's a big question, What things shouldn't be commodified? His professional goal is to make knowledge free and accessible. He says that he wants to avoid issues like "health care" and focus more on things like "Linux" or "Wikipedia." I wonder how limiting this is. Talking about code without discussing the computer required to access it? In one post Wales sort of addresses the digital divide by way of describing Wikipedia's cross-language expansion and move beyond serving only people in "wealthy western nations with broadband Internet access."
I'm not trying to tear him down, I promise. Wales is taking on a broad issue, and I hate to feel like I'm asking FCC-style questions. But, I can't help but immediately think of the issue of public WiFi. How can knowledge leap beyond the crest of the on-line wave? Do we need to drop loads of Wiki-print outs in the mail? In other words, if the means has a cost, can a thing be considered free?
I guess if I go back and rethink it as this post's titular quote suggests, then it can be. Knowledge can be free the way speech is free. For example, the writers of a magazine can freely express their views, but I still need to buy the magazine to read the articles, and the publisher must raise the funds to print it. Nonetheless, the actual thing of "speech," which is enabled by the publishing of those pages, is free.
Wales' revolutionary concept (the one he's addressing, others have joined him) is that other, particular types of actions and creations might be placed under that same category as speech. So if knowledge is power, how much power are we willing to share? Like the proverbial "commons," I think it all comes down to access. The green might be open for planting, but if it is fenced in, and the gate is locked, what happens next?
Comments