Comments on: The Tragedy of Wikipedia http://perbylund.com/blog/2008/04/the-tragedy-of-wikipedia/ Colliding Softly with the World of Ideas Fri, 06 Aug 2010 20:34:44 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Per Bylund http://perbylund.com/blog/2008/04/the-tragedy-of-wikipedia/comment-page-1/#comment-747 Per Bylund Tue, 06 May 2008 13:47:46 +0000 http://www.perbylund.com/blog/?p=65#comment-747 Responding to Jess M; You're right. It doesn't make sense that someone, himself consisting of molecules, can gain ownership of other molecules. I see it more as gaining the ownership of a certain function or use of resources. I have previously mentioned these ideas <a href="http://www.perbylund.com/blog/?p=37" rel="nofollow">on this blog</a>, but I will take the opportunity to soon add another post on ownership and elaborate on it a bit. You might be interested in my master's thesis (in political science), in which I developed the idea. It is by no measure "finished" as idea or theory, but I believe it has some real potential. Check it out and let me know what you think. It is available on my web site here: <i><a href="http://perbylund.com/academics_polsci_msc.pdf" rel="nofollow">Man and Matter: A Philosophical Inquiry into the Justification of Ownership in Land from the Basis of Self -Ownership</a></i> (pdf). Responding to Jess M;

You’re right. It doesn’t make sense that someone, himself consisting of molecules, can gain ownership of other molecules. I see it more as gaining the ownership of a certain function or use of resources. I have previously mentioned these ideas on this blog, but I will take the opportunity to soon add another post on ownership and elaborate on it a bit.

You might be interested in my master’s thesis (in political science), in which I developed the idea. It is by no measure “finished” as idea or theory, but I believe it has some real potential. Check it out and let me know what you think. It is available on my web site here: Man and Matter: A Philosophical Inquiry into the Justification of Ownership in Land from the Basis of Self -Ownership (pdf).

]]> By: Jess M http://perbylund.com/blog/2008/04/the-tragedy-of-wikipedia/comment-page-1/#comment-746 Jess M Tue, 06 May 2008 02:44:28 +0000 http://www.perbylund.com/blog/?p=65#comment-746 Hey Per, Would elaborate on your position on idea property rights? I've always thought it was strange that someone could own the abstract idea of an arrangement of molecules. Hey Per,

Would elaborate on your position on idea property rights? I’ve always thought it was strange that someone could own the abstract idea of an arrangement of molecules.

]]> By: Per Bylund http://perbylund.com/blog/2008/04/the-tragedy-of-wikipedia/comment-page-1/#comment-732 Per Bylund Thu, 01 May 2008 19:37:06 +0000 http://www.perbylund.com/blog/?p=65#comment-732 Responding to Alvin; Well, the problem with the commons is not primarily that it is common, but that there is no cost of using relative to the benefit of doing so. The cost is either zero or distributed on non-users whereas the benefit is strictly or weakly individual. In other words: the individual can take advantage of the commons through not taking the full cost of generating and consuming the benefit. The problem with the Wikipedia is not that it is a commons in the intellectual domain, but that it has non-restricted (costless) access for editors. You may have free online newspapers or magazines where members freely and voluntarily contribute to the common product, but you still do not experience the "tragedy" - because the article you submit cannot be changed by others (except for at a cost). As for intellectual property, any "commons" problems can be alleviated <i>through contracts</i>. There is no reason for establishing institutions only to solve the issue of intellectual property, since all such issues can be solved voluntarily. Also, I do not subscribe to the notion that one can own an idea. Especially not if one thinks of it and then doesn't care to protect it. Responding to Alvin;

Well, the problem with the commons is not primarily that it is common, but that there is no cost of using relative to the benefit of doing so. The cost is either zero or distributed on non-users whereas the benefit is strictly or weakly individual. In other words: the individual can take advantage of the commons through not taking the full cost of generating and consuming the benefit.

The problem with the Wikipedia is not that it is a commons in the intellectual domain, but that it has non-restricted (costless) access for editors. You may have free online newspapers or magazines where members freely and voluntarily contribute to the common product, but you still do not experience the “tragedy” – because the article you submit cannot be changed by others (except for at a cost).

As for intellectual property, any “commons” problems can be alleviated through contracts. There is no reason for establishing institutions only to solve the issue of intellectual property, since all such issues can be solved voluntarily.

Also, I do not subscribe to the notion that one can own an idea. Especially not if one thinks of it and then doesn’t care to protect it.

]]> By: Alvin Lowi http://perbylund.com/blog/2008/04/the-tragedy-of-wikipedia/comment-page-1/#comment-731 Alvin Lowi Thu, 01 May 2008 15:30:02 +0000 http://www.perbylund.com/blog/?p=65#comment-731 The problem of the commons is that it is common, i.e. unknowned. The commons ends in tragedy because it is without the benefit of proprietary administration, which is arguably the only kind of administration there is. Without profit-and-loss management, there is no way known for the rational allocation of scarce resources. Wikipedia and like internet phenomena represent a commons in the intellectual domain. Without a social institution of intellectual property, we are left with on the remnants of traditional practices in tenure over tangibles for the rational management of the resources. In the case of the internet, these tangibles are the physical infrastructure of wires, relays and transmitters, which boil down to bandwidth. If bandwidth is unlimited, there is no impetus for ownership because there is unlimited supply. Where there is no scarcity, there is no ownership. The problem of the commons is that it is common, i.e. unknowned. The commons ends in tragedy because it is without the benefit of proprietary administration, which is arguably the only kind of administration there is. Without profit-and-loss management, there is no way known for the rational allocation of scarce resources. Wikipedia and like internet phenomena represent a commons in the intellectual domain. Without a social institution of intellectual property, we are left with on the remnants of traditional practices in tenure over tangibles for the rational management of the resources. In the case of the internet, these tangibles are the physical infrastructure of wires, relays and transmitters, which boil down to bandwidth. If bandwidth is unlimited, there is no impetus for ownership because there is unlimited supply. Where there is no scarcity, there is no ownership.

]]>