I’ve been thinking a lot lately about Virtue. One thing that has been lost over time with the word “virtue”, which we can rediscover with the etymology of the word, is that it is supposed to be habitual. The original Greek context of the word is habitual excellence. I must admit preferring that interpretation of the word over what it has come to mean since.
When thinking about virtues in the sense of trying to achieve habitual excellence I remember an article written by Yochai Benkler and Helen Nissenbaum: Commons-based Peer Production and Virtue (PDF). In it, Benkler and Nissenbaum suggest that commons-based “peer production offers an opportunity for more people to engage in practices that permit them to exhibit and experience virtuous behavior.” In other words, releasing your code or content in an open fashion, or joining in on an open source project is a good practice that provides a chance at “habitual excellence.” More simply, there is virtue in open source. It’s not clear to me that the majority of people involved in open source projects are doing so simply to be good citizens or to blatantly achieve habitual excellence. In Some Simple Economics of Open Source (PDF) Lerner and Tirole wrote “Any explanation [of the many contributions made to open source projects] based on altruism only goes so far.”
I find that most people working in open source do not consider their contributions the same as charitable works. Perhaps it is more simply a part of their computing environment. To many contributors, it is as natural to log in to IRC and answer a question or submit a small patch to share a fix to a problem as it is to configure the desktop background. Nonetheless, there is at the heart of this openness a belief that the proprietary system of development and distribution of software is inherently wrong. It’s not just a matter of wanting to, as Bill and Ted said, “be excellent to each other“, more it’s an understanding of, and desire to work within, the correct system (a common trait with the better engineers). When it comes to code, the system of transparency is the correct way, it is the excellence.
It is true that transparency is not always a virtue. Transparency can be a virtue by enabling feedback. But transparency, if it is one sided, can also be dangerous. People are threatened by transparency because we all have secrets, and usually don’t want to share them. That said, institutional transparency can help all of us because it improves trust and creates a system which steers us towards honesty. If we assume that the system is transparent then that guides our behavior. Just as Benkler and Nissenbaum note about Wikipedia and its “self-conscious use of open discourse”. The participants of Wikipedia know the realm in which they work, they understand the goal and their work fits into that goal without over-reaching protections and restrictions. If we are used to systems that hide our actions then transparency is a threat. However, if we understand a system’s goals, processes, and implementation, and are allowed to work within it (or even experiment in it), we will respect the framework while doing so.
Institutional, or system-based transparency is easier to explain, and more easily understood in the realm of code and by technical people. This is because it is already organic to their ethos. They get it immediately because, despite making us hole up in dark rooms with our screens shining their warm, familiar glow on our faces, our computers have become social tools. Despite our redefinition of the term, we do interact with each other through our technology. This is important because the act of sharing is built into this grander social network. I use the word ethos to define this because sharing is the distinct spirit of what is going on in the technical world. The more interesting part of this is that that spirit has now moved into other areas that the technology has forced itself into. Media being the prime examples: photos, music, movies. Transparency is not a natural tendency to those who have been creating such media before now. This has slowly changed with the introduction of licenses such as the Creative Commons, and with successful experiments such as Radiohead’s latest release, title In Rainbows. Sharing works, especially when all parties understand the system and the intent behind the sharing, has become most apparently beneficial to distribution and dissimination.
This should be no different for health. Health is one of our foremost human concerns. To successfully treat health problems around the globe there must be sharing. There must be transparency. This is important for all aspects of health systems, from the information that guides our understanding and diagnosis of problems, to the tools we use to facilitate the vast amount of work that needs to be done. Without transparency where is our health? Locked in trade secrets? Protected from our understanding for
what gain?
The good news is that we are on the right track. We’ve been working hard on our code, which is all being developed in a fully transparent manner, but we are also doing a great deal to make sure our information is available too. The last couple weeks I’ve been learning more about the great work the folks in the Global Resource Center are doing and find their freely available information truly inspiring. I think there are probably areas within our work in which we can be even more transparent, not just so that others may benefit from our knowledge, but so that we can then benefit from theirs as they join in on the habitual excellence we are working with in being transparent. And join they will. Not just to be altuistic, but because the system of transparency we are engaging in is the correct system for health.
[This was originally written 12/6/2007 for the IntraHealth Informatics Blog]