Thanks to Peter Sefton and his project for funding integration of Zotero with OpenOffice. Peter has more here. There’s still work to do all around:
… but this is a great start.
Another year, and another Endnote release. Its developers have announced a new feature: what they call groups. This is basically user-defined folders.
Here’s the thing: Zotero has had this feature from the beginning. Zotero also still goes way beyond Endnote in its support for notes, tagging and so forth.
So let’s see … you can pay $99 upgrade fee for a generally more limited application, or you can get a superior application for free, and contribute to a genuine movement.
That movement is one where users fully shape the direction of the application. Indeed, most of the people involved in coding or designing Zotero and related pieces are scholars; users who know what they want and need, and want to create something better than existing alternatives like Endnote.
A second principle that flows from the user-led orientation of Zotero is that data must be free.
Finally, a consequence of the open data and open code approach to Zotero is that it creates new opportunities. One simple example is word-processor integration. As a start, one of the Zotero developers added support for Word. Then a Zotero user came along and improved that, and then still another outside developer who wanted to add equivalent (and compatible) support to OpenOffice (to be released soon). I expect to see a whole ecosystem of similar innovations build up over time.
A few years ago I actually gave up the Endnote ghost. I had been beta testing the first version that ran natively on Mac OS X, and been really frustrated by the poor quality of what I saw. As I was starting work on a book manuscript, I was finding Word crashing regularly, and I knew it had something to do with Endnote. So I complained; about that, and a whole lot of other things.
A project lead actually told me at the time something like “if you don’t like Endnote, use something else.” So I did! Not finding any good alternatives, I asked the question “what would it take to create a better and more open alternative to Endnote?” When enough people start to ask the same question, the answer is something like Zotero.
For awhile now I’ve been watching the Zotero project, and admiring their ability to deliver a compelling application that users (including me) have been hungering for. I appreciate that they have built the tool around one of the preeminent open source applications (Firefox), and that they have relied on open standards and development tools where possible. Finally, the code is all freely available and unencumbered. In all these ways, the Zotero team has gotten it right.
But … is this really enough to take it to the next stage?
Consider that there is no community involvement in Zotero development planning. The Zotero coders add features, based on their own internal assessment, adopting their own solutions, without wider public input or discussion. Third-party developers find out about what they are doing only after they release the code as more-or-less a fait accompli.
The latest news about word-processor integration is a perfect case in point. As a co-project lead for the OpenOffice bibliographic project, I’m trilled to see them say elsewhere they intend to support similar functionality there, but also perplexed they plan to do this without apparent consultation with our project. I can only assume this because I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary.
Put simply, Zotero looks more and more like a proprietary project dressed in free software clothing.
My problem with this does not just reflect some hopeless idealism, though. The issues of process and governance have practical consequences. The Zotero dev list has been essentially dead since its opening, which I have to believe is a consequence of the fact that developers simply do not feel included in the process.
And Zotero needs outside developers. Innovation in this space depends on standardization of data formats and representations, document encoding, APIs, and so forth. And a lot of code ought to be able to be shared between projects. Without the collaboration that makes that possible, users will end up boxed into the same kind of corner that truly proprietary applications like Endnote have long painted us into.
Free software is not just about cost; it’s about an alternative development methodology. Eric Raymond famously described traditional closed development models as cathedral-like, and the free software revolution inaugurated by Linux as a bazaar. Raymond makes clear that the cathedral approach has its place, particularly in the early stages of a project. But beyond that, the advantages of truly open development are so compelling that they are hard to avoid. Indeed, Mozilla and Firefox are themselves a product of this methodology. That Zotero exists at all is because they have smartly built off of this free software infrastructure. Yet one gets the sense of a project at the portals of the cathedral gazing out at the bazaar, but not yet ready to step out the door.
Now—as they look to transition from a compelling first release to more advanced functionality—is a perfect time for the Zotero team to move from the hermetic world of the cathedral, to the open world of the bazaar. If done right, it will get us all where we want to go more quickly, and with better results. This has to mean cultivating a more collaborative and interactive community, particularly with developers. It has to mean publicly documenting and discussing what they want to do before they do it, so that other developers can give useful feedback, and in turn plan for forthcoming changes.
I should add that I hesitated to post this. But I’ve already gently pushed on this in both public and private, on more than one occasion, without much effect (though they did open up their code repository). I present this, then, in the spirit of constructive criticism.
Norm on something I’ve been thinking about for awhile: using OpenID for identity and authentication. Could be a really nice way to tie together distributed data and services, say for scholars.
more on OpenID and the semantic web
Creative Commons License