No doubt we agree. I just tried to express what the initial approach seemed to me after reading the first posts.
And yes, it's probably a language issue. In my mind the word "educate" recalls something imposed on a good-bad and right-wrong bases: you do something wrong or don't know what to do, I'll educate you on what is good (right). School and parents educate children. It's not a negative thing per se, it just makes me think about someone that is superior that teaches someone else that has to learn something. I see it as a mainly one-way interaction hence it implies that who puts himself on the educator side has to think to be superior than who he is going to educate. Also, it makes me think about something that is a prerequisite for some environments: if you are not educated enough, you should stay out (here education has the sense of knowing some special rules to follow: sometimes such rules are essential for coordination, sometimes they are set as an entry barrier on purpose).
Please, don't take me wrong: I'm not against education. IMHO it's a vital ingredient of our social way of living and growing as individuals and as mankind, in its positive and constructive sense and if fairly used; we wouldn't be what we are without it.
I only find the connotation I see in it of teacher->pupil or one-way-interaction not well suit for representing the desire to spread the free software philosophy. I much prefer to think about it as sharing knowledge inter pares, just as it's in the scientific community. Obviously, there will always be someone that knows more than others and, hopefully, is going to transfer his knowledge to others that are willing to receive it; but eventually who has received knowledge will grow to the point to become active part of the system and help others to get into. If in this process somebody starts to think that he is superior to others and, as such, feels he has the right to impose (not share) his view and decisions (his knowledge), then he breaks the implicit agreement between participants of a free community. The teacher doesn't have to prove the pupil that what he's teaching is right, the pupil just has to accept and learn it as it is. On the other side, the free software community should convince (and keep convincing) people that its view is preferable among others so to gain consensus and participants; and this is not because it doesn't have enough power to impose it: this would be the opposite of its nature.
Sorry for bothering you with my thoughts. To me it's clear enough that we have the same ideas and that I'm probably too restrictive and ignorant about the correct meaning of the word "educate". Perhaps I could say the same for this word in my own language. If others don't feel this possibility of misunderstanding and misinterpretation, then that's it: I'm fine (and reassured) with all the explanations and clarifications received. Thanks.
-- View this message in context: http://inkscape.13.x6.nabble.com/Re-Educating-users-on-Free-Software-was-C-1... Sent from the Inkscape - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.