The constraints in form of editing and subject criteria and the randomness of semi-editors limiting the access to create new pages is killing Wikipedia.

The Top Down philosophy for putting knowledge into the system is now a Rule without any exception.

Like I’m used to work Bottom Up creating a subject and then inserting it into the knowledge tree by rewriting the articles above it, I’ve found my contributions killed off.

Knol enables you to write an article on the same subject that will compete with the other knols (and all other information about the subject).

And like Knol has no preconception of how the layout of an article has to be, even this can become a stronge incentive to people: emulation has always interested humans.

Finally, like you don’t have to opt-in on the revenue sharing program, it might even be more noble if you’re sharing your knowledge via Knol for free.

I’m sorry that you feel this way about poker, because it’s a great game and I like it. As to incentives, you are right that they come in many forms but not all incentives are evenly effective. I believe that if I offered you 50$ to participate in a survey, you’d be more eager to do so than if I asked you to do it for your own satisfaction.

as to SEO - that’s exactly the point! In a perfect world an SE would know how to tell between “better” websites and “worse” websites without the need of manipulation techniques. The fact that people have to use SEO is a major drawback in the current generation of Search Engines.

Jenia.

Google rips people off and not the SEO. Without the SEO you would not be able to find anything with Google. They just suit the content to a form that the search engines can handle.

Regards
Johan

Thanks for the kind words.

You’ve recognized precisely the issue that I intend to discuss in my next post. Why would someone who wishes to share his fortune with the unfortunate be prevented from doing so, especially if he enjoys it? Isn’t it better than nothing? I say NO, and I will explain it in my next post.

About the Zimbabwe-Botswana comparison, you’re just making my point stronger. We’re talking about two neighbor countries both with pretty similar harsh conditions but with very different leaderships. One manages to maintain a prospering economy (GDP of 16,500$) while the other brought the economy to a disaster (GDP of 200$ and inflation of 100,000%). The conclusion is that Zimbabwe’s government is to be blamed, no matter how good their intentions are. My point is that with the foreign aid the chances of replacing the failing leaders are much lower. As long as the people receive help, even if it is just enough to survive, they will be much more hesitative in standing up to the corrupted rulers.

Alex

I really appreciate your comprehensive analysis. I’d like to refer to some of your arguments.

Firstly, I defiantly agree with you that not all the revolutions are caused by the poor; however it does not mean that the low class can not evoke a change of the leadership as a result of his economic condition. It doesn’t have to be a violent rebellion of a historical proportion, even though it might be. As I have mentioned in the post, the effect is more significant in a democratic society where the government is replaced in elections, even though it can happen anywhere and can even cause a change of regime (the rise and the fall of the communism in Russia were both a result of poor welfare of the people). In a democratic society, by definition, a dissatisfaction of a significant part of the population will result in a replacement of the government, if the number of the discontented is large enough. The most obvious examples I can come up with are the Great Depression in United States in the 30’s and the economic crisis in Argentina (1999-2002). The first led to a crushing defeat of the Republican president Hoover by the Democratic candidate Roosevelt in the elections of 1932. The second made the president De La Rua resign. I still believe that strong philanthropic activities can delay the replacement of failing rulers.

Secondly, the welfare of a society is a public good (a product which many enjoy, no matter who is the producer). Therefore, in order to determine the optimal amount of social welfare, it must be provided by the entire public (or the government as its representative) and not by few contributors with their own agenda. You’re right about the existence of partial competition between the non-profit organizations; however there are still millions of them which make every one of them pretty limited. Along with the fact that the government has more than just funding at its disposal but also legislative measures, in my opinion, it’s still a more suitable candidate to provide a public good such as social welfare.

Thirdly, I totally agree with you that the philanthropy may be used by some wealthy people to promote their own interests. I intend to dedicate a separate post to this matter. In brief, my answer to your question would be that the problem is in both. As long as philanthropy exists it will involve wealthy people with their own interests. If it was based on all the public, it wouldn’t be philanthropy but a tax enforced by the social norms rather than by the law (which is also a kind of social norm).

Fourthly, I believe that the government intervention needed only to provide public goods, which is true in case of welfare. The effect of passing this responsibility to philanthropy can be seen in a comparison between the Scandinavian countries and the United States. Event tough all those nations are very wealthy, we can observe two cardinally different approaches to welfare. On the one hand, the United States is, by far, the nation with the highest private philanthropy as a percentage of GDP (about 1.7%) while it is negligible among the Scandinavians. On the other hand, the welfare expenditure as a percentage of GDP, in Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark is twice higher than in United States. If we examine the outcome of these approaches, we can see that the Scandinavian countries are much better welfare states than the United States. The relative poverty rate in United States is four times higher than in the Scandinavian countries (about 15% compared with about 3.5%).

I certainly agree with you that there is a connection between philanthropy and inequality. It’s a strong motivation for the rich to maintain the status quo, and keep the poor from changing the current order which would lead to a more equal distribution of fortune. I will keep posting about other aspects of this subject, which some of them you’ve mentioned. Thanks for your insight and I hope to hear your opinion in the future.

Alex

First, it’s very important to understand where philanthropy comes from. Although there are many sources for the money that fuels non-profits, most of it comes from various funds and like sources. These funds are based, among other things, upon contributions made by old people, or by the families of the deceased. I’m going to argue here, that this redistribution of wealth have a positive effect on society, and is much more efficient than any government mechanism to do the same. Inheritance taxes will never be as efficient.

The second thing I’d like to mention is rather a comment about your Zimbabwe example. Accidently, I have been interested in this topic, but the explanation I know differs from the one you mention. Ironically, the Zimbabwe government is very rational and sees it’s role as maximizing the wealth of it’s leaders. Their method of doing so is by keeping the population oppressed and keeping the flow of aid regular. Kind of like what the Hamas government is currently doing in the Gaza strip. The directions of the Zimbabwe govermenet and the one at Bostwana are totally different, which makes comparing them irrelevant.

All in all, great post on a great topic.

Roman

Regards,
Bill Huddleston

The blurb below is from her website
(www.clairegaudiani.com)

The Greater Good
The Greater Good is a passionate, pragmatic and finally optimistic manifesto for revitalizing the promise of the American economy…

“Most people think that Americans are generous because we are rich. The truth is that we are rich…because we are generous…” Claire Gaudiani tells us.

Stories…

The Greater Good is filled with stories, stories of personal generosity by individual Americans. We have a great tradition of helping each other get an education, develop good ideas, and build our communities. We do this for the greater good of everyone, not just for ourselves.

These stories describe the remarkable contributions to American prosperity that have resulted from these generous acts. If you are involved in giving or raising money, you will find an inspiring story here that you can share with others committed to your cause.

If you’d like to read one such great story, the founding of the Provident Hospital in Chicago, click here.

Philanthropy is Red White and Blue

Personal generosity for the greater good is a unique American value. No other people in the world are as generous as Americans. Eighty-nine percent of us give each year, and not only to our churches or synagogues, or to our relatives. We give to causes that will help other Americans, because we care about the greater good for all citizens. The Founding Fathers understood the need for citizens in the new country to help each other out, so everyone had a stake in the future. We need to keep this commitment alive and well in the 21st century.

Americans are Inventors and Investors

The Greater Good is a manifesto, as well as a history of philanthropy. Claire challenges all of us to maintain, in fact to increase, our generosity. We have more accumulated wealth as a nation than ever before, thanks to our democratic capitalist system tempered by generosity, and we must reinvest this wealth through generous acts.

The Greater Good tells many stories of philanthropic entrepreneurs, investors in people, in our environment built and natural, and in ideas. We need generous investors today to address our current challenges, schools, neighborhoods, housing, whatever is needed to keep the American dream alive for all citizens.

Generosity is Essential

The Greater Good argues from sound economic evidence that forward generosity is essential to continued American prosperity. The book demonstrates that philanthropy sustains upward mobility, develops new industries and nourishes democracy. It has provided the early investments in people and physical and intellectual capital, the areas that economists such as Paul Romer of Stanford University have shown to be most important for fueling the country’s growth.

Claire notes the challenges of the moment (rising personal debt, slow growth, gated communities, shrinking civic involvement, flat giving rates) as well as the opportunity (the next fifty years will see the largest private intergenerational wealth transfer in human history). She sets forth an agenda for forward generous investment to ensure that American social and economic success is assured.

I agree with you that the greatest problem with philanthropy is, as you said, that it allows the government to neglect its duties. It also disallows any public discussion on the proper ways to aid the poor - unless of course, the public somehow organizes itself and the donations it makes. It also inhibits public discussion about the people who deal with philanthropy - inequality in the Western countries is growing, and countries that rely on a strong middle class (and most democracies rely on it) must make sure it remains strong to function properly. Higher inequality means the very rich people get richer and the rest get (even if only relatively) poorer. This hurts both democracy and business: modern age mass consumption, which is the basis of western economies, can’t be supported by a few rich people (no “mass”) or from the impoverished (no “consumption”).

Basically what I’m getting at is that while I agree with your claim, the arguments one should use are a bit different.

Thanks for your comment. I am aware of how ‘unpopular’ my argument may be. However, my goal is not to create a provokation but to emphasize the less noticeable anomalies, especially those which I believe effect the Internet. Earlier I’ve criticized advertising and the economical functionality of search engines, now I present my opinion on the negative effects of philanthropy.

I would really like if you mentioned some examples that would contradict my point. Nevertheless, I am willing to admit that my argument is not always true in case of an international aid. The reason is that there is no single central government that runs our planet; therefore no one has the responsibility to assist countries in trouble, the same way as local governments assist their own citizens. So in cases of natural disasters, starvation, violence, epidemics, etc, a voluntary intervention of other countries is necessary. Finally, this argument has nothing to do with the free market; on the contrary, I claim that the functions of philanthropists should be done by the government.

Alex