Community Page
- techliberation.com/ Jump to website »
-
Subscribe -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
-
Recent Comments
- Incredibly hollow post, contracts of adhesion are designed to unilaterally "protect" the seller by "restricting" (depriving) the consumer of their rights. To assert that we...
- Why don't more proprietary software vendors use a common license? The proprietary EULAs mostly say the same things -- couldn't the BSA or somebody issue a standard one?
- Twitter as we know it was built for about $15-20 million. Google lasted almost a year on $100,000 before taking over the world with $25 million of investor money. This is highway robbery, you could...
- I think the news people are in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" bind over Google's indexing and summarizing of their work. Allowing it to be indexed gets them a little...
- I'm a software engineer who has built web applications for Office Depot, Target, AIG (no I'm not proud of it) and many others. J. Stephens apparently has not worked in the private sector....
3 years ago
link
I agree with you (of course) that the Wikipedia model provides economic value, perhaps even more than Britannica provides. It strikes me, though, that the peer production & sharing model might have a disadvantage in producing campaign contributions. One thing about these particular broken windows is that the glaziers know how to lobby effectively, while the shopkeepers face some significant collective action problems.
3 years ago
Here's the plain text:
http://crookedtimber.org/2006/05/30/a-general-t...
3 years ago
Obviously, they are of value to the economy. Just because they are not overtly monetized certainly does not mean they are not of value.
"By the same logic, the sun and the air don't contribute in any meaningful way to the U.S. economy."
Strongly recommend the book "The Future of Life" by Edward Wilson, The Future of Life, in which he does take a stab at valuing the biosphere.
But, let's get back to the reason these phenomena are so revolutionary--not because they have built an Encyclopedia (which is in fact very good, but I digress) or a super computer but because they have done so outside of the control infrastructure of the traditional hierarchies.
That is why wikipedia, open source software, have been so vilified by those agents of the powerful traditional hierarchies.
Examples of this vilification: Microsoft calling FOSS "cancerous", Brittanica response to the Nature study, SCO suit against linux, and you can look at those apologists of the corporate power infrastructure attacking open source and Free Culture at such propaganda sites as IP Central every day...
3 years ago
2 years ago