|This page has DiiGo and TrailFire annotations.||see also... [GroupWealth]||[EditThisPage]|
Wasn't it George B. Shaw, who had the courage to formulate "Lack of money is the source of all evil"...
As an introduction, please read these articles first:
Just noted, that within seconds the Google count came down to the following figures as documented by the following screenshot:
Social Online Collaborating Communities produce a wealth of ideas, information, movies, programs, social relations, etc. but they usually work for free. Sharing of generated wealth is not in their MissionStatement. Counterexamples welcome.
It doesn't need "rocket science" to see, that (future) online communities, who additionally support economic integration, will be more attractive than those, who adhere to the principle: l'art pour l'art.
Some OnlineCommunity, or better CommunityServiceProviders, have in their TOS (TermsOfService) a StayPoor clause. Let's become aware of this suppression mechanism, so that CreatingAndSharingWealth communities can be easier detected, connected and developed.
I would like to talk about Wealth in a careful and detailed manner separating (... Land, Capital, Wages and Profit, ...) [CswForumEntry] and discussing their underlying meanings, or in other words, what these types of wealth indicate as they increase or decrease, but am concerned such a discussion would cause much anger.
The reason I ask is, that my study leads me to believe, there is a surprising simple way to solve such troubles as StayPoor and overbearing Terms of Service, but it requires an unconventional ViewPoint that is easily misinterpreted as an attack on those (all of us) that already participate in our troubled system.
Is anyone here interested in such an examination, and if so, is this the best page for it? Thanks, -- PatrickAnderson
I realize that the preceding IFF may be both prejudicial and provocative. That being said, I've been feeling that I should at least stop lurking on this subject long enough to ask if there is a possibility for civil and polite debate. I ask this merely to clarify the level of interest that I may exhibit, since I generally found, that I prefer to disengage from contentious matters, rather than argue. To avoid this, I would like to request that we define the "terms of engagement" (and behaviour), so that I can form a better opinion regarding the value of participating. After all, I would prefer not to get involved in something, that I will simply disengage from without really making a contribution.
Hans, I'm glad you perceive at least a chance of usefulness here.
I am also very cautious about how this should be approached, and still don't know what to do...
I wonder, as an experiment into the psychology and difficulty of discussion, if we could talk about an unrelated subject - one that isn't so loaded with emotion - so that we try to determine what the TermsOfEngagement? should be no matter the subject.
Fridemar, by 'peaceful' and 'goodwill' are you also talking about the discussion itself? If so, then rest assured, it is an even higher priority to me than this particular subject.
Until later this week... -- HansWobbe
Fridemar, would you say every person could simultaneously profit in the way WarrenBuffet has? Would it solve our problems if every single person were a billionaire? What woud happen, if we (any community or government) issued an enormous amount of currency and distributed it equally among all citizens?
Ok, here are my first toe-in-the-water claims:
For the sake of the broadest CreatingAndSharingWealth within a SocialCommonWealth, the author suggests not to heat up the old ideologies with identifiers like "Owner_Profit" and "wages" etc. Following the Google:NPOV of the wikipedia, it would be more helpful to speak of PeerIncome?, PeerInvestment?, PeerMaterials?, PeerWork?, PeerMaintenance?, PeerInsurance?. We live more and more in the new age of the Google:Prosumer [RevolutionaryWealth], bridging the old gap between different strata of the society.
In the new holistic view: every person needs to be appreciated as brother or sister. Please don't let us make new Kains and Abels, where the Kains kill the Abels, only because they appear more favored.
So the author is struggling for naming identifiers with:
(This perspective is perhaps more readable)
Now we can subsume:
P = G - R
with G = GG + SG, R = GR + SR
Yes Patrick, we all can prosper in the new century, converging to TheSingularity, in a way that surpasses all earlier imaginations. Did you read [RayKurzweil]'s TheSingularityIsNear? Isn't it a great opportunity, that we can collaborate in MeatballWiki and in the broader Web-community, developing and practising friendly, peaceful social concepts, orchestrating the technology revolution.
You are right, when implying with your rhetorical questions, issuing an enormous amount of currency and distributing it equally among all citizens, doesn't solve the problem. We all must create and share value, overcoming the StayPoor mentality. Money is at last only a tool to trace, who owns whom a favor. So let's do each other as much favor, as we can.
Let's words transform into actions and PeerMoneyForServicesGiven?: The author just found, that all Google:TLD s CreateAndShareWealth.*, CreatingAndSharingWealth.* are not yet taken, so he bought CreateAndShareWealth.net and make it pointing to this page. This is an act of OpenBusiness. All peers, wether only lurking or writing, are herewith given the favor to buy some of these valuable domains at e.g. NameSecure?.com for 7.95 US$. Especially SunirShah, who not only provides and pays the service but contributed to software infrastructure and the content with thousands of work hours. The same holds for the authors, who gave countless hours of unpaid work with their contributions.
So let us wait for the next surprise. Please feel free to buy the domain and let it point to here and participate in the social value creation process towards a SocialCommonWealth. But please don't lurk and buy. Such a BackRoomDecision will probably produce a bad community karma for you in the end. See IteratedPrisonersDilemma.
Let us analyze, what this means. The author's cost SR of PeerMoneyForServicesReceived? is paid indirectly to his peers by his SR in form of:
Instead of this, he invites openly his peers
The Peer revenue P is Paid indirectly via the equivalent of his G for Given goods and services in the same sense as he pays for his peers by the R for Received goods and services.
Now Profit, associated with :
sounds much more
Doesn't it ;-)
PS.: Wondering about the frequent updates of the author? This may serve as a public documentation of the working time on this page, he has given in this project and movement.
Does anyone else agree that we might be better advised to relocate these discussions to an oddmuse WikiHive?? The advantages, I see in doing so, include...
I suspect that we could get SamRose to agree that we could host a SubHive? on his OBM site, or we could just use the ODD(muse) hive (to the best of my knowledge Alex will have no objections to this). I also now run a full blown hive, but I am not at all sure that the proposed discussion should take place there, since I am relatively well-known and several audiences would find it confusing to be too exposed to the statements that I suspect I may be making in this context.
Hans, I agree to your suggestion for relocation. But currently all the available energies of the author go into the development of this social innovation of CreatingAndSharingWealth in an OpenBusinessWiki, leading to a SocialCommonWealth. It wouldn't be a good service to the community, if the author frittered away his energies into diverse discussions of traditional economic theories and ideologies, instead of creating new patterns in collaboration with peers (hey SamRose, you asked for the patterns), not covered by the old theories and ideologies. Counterexamples welcome. Patrick, I feel we have the same global goal, a happy, healthy and wealthy planet, ruled by wisdom. Our suggested and practised methods however may be different. -- [fridemar]
1. Are we going to pretend the ownership of physical resources (such as the machines that host this website) do not matter? If so, then why is there concern (for instance) that Google bought FeedBurner?? Owners rule. Control is drawn by physical property lines, not by good-will.
2. Purchasing domain names may be useful to help point others to a discussion, but they are just information (as is money), and are worth almost nothing for those that do not have food. We must own (or somehow peer-aquire if own is a dirty word) some physical sources of production before wealth can be created. If this is not true, can you give me a counter-example? -- PatrickAnderson
Patrick, of course you are welcome and your contributions are appreciated here and elsewhere at the same time. I assume, that Hans is reminding all peers to the MeatballMission, that we are concentrating on the advancement of [OnlineCommunities]. Here the author sees a chance for a [SocialNewDeal] Therefore the initial author of this page has the focus on [CreatingAndSharingWealth] within the online communities. Nevertheless the methods, [ProtoPattern]s and [Pattern]s, developed and practised in MeatballWiki and elsewhere can be of great benefit for [PoorPeers], joining the online-communities in the next years (especially the ca. 200 million kids in the [OneLaptopPerChild] project). The author didn't claim, that [CreatePeerWealthBasedOnDomainNamesDevelopedInWikis] is the only [CreateWealthTool] or better [CreateSocialWealthTool],[CreatePeerWealthTool]. A single peer author cannot deal with this huge field all alone. He therefore currently concentrates on the [MonsterTags], given as all [HighPrecisionTags] in form of [MixedCaseTags], i.e. [WikiWords]. As you can see, the author is a [GoogleFan], because he sees in Google the biggest potential TagWiki, the world has ever seen. Instead of wining over [Google+bought+FeedBurner], we use Google all the time, as you can see, even if the links above are [AskingWikiPage]s. We use and recommend this currently as a tool for stimulating [IncidentalCollaboration]. Currently ownership of physical production tools is not the key problem. You find a "host of" free hosts for building wiki communities. But currently only [MeatballWiki] allows his peers to prosper economically. ;-) (Counterexamples welcome.) Awareness of the [StayPoor] mechanism and ways to overcome, it is the key factor. Of course, you are right to have [TrustedHost]s, where the [FreeMemberAccount] cannot be [CancelledWithoutReason] or [ClosedWithoutReason].
The author unlocked the above semiclosed text to make it more readable and signal his openness :-)
I think the premise of this page is misguided, in three ways.
"Lack of money is the source of all evil"
This quote by George Bernard Shaw is in reaction to St. Paul's famous quotation, "The love of money is the root of all evil." Shaw was not saying the system of money is evil, but simply not having enough. It's an expression of raw capitalism. However, neither quote is correct. Not everything in the world needs to be touched by money.
Exploitation by social contribution
In the first citation, [What the MySpace generation should know about working for free], the authors of that article make a rather Marxist argument that members of social communities should be compensated for the aggregate monetary value their collective action creates for the site owners. Then they make this rather stunning statement of the real truth:
Indeed, their argument is indeed complicated by the fact that the participants on these sites are doing so of their own free will with the RightToLeave, and do so because it is enjoyable and of direct value to them. The argument that the owners of the site that creates such massive value for the world should not reap a reward is shortsighted. There is no obvious threat to the net.public by finding a way to capitalize their investment in creating the site, given the rapid ease of creating new globe spanning net.publics should one falter. The reason the reward is so high is that there are countless failed attempts, so the overall expected value (probability of success times reward) is not as high as you might see.
Reward for social contribution
Speaking for myself, I do not contribute to MeatballWiki for direct monetary reward. Doing so, I think, would dramatically pervert my purpose for doing so. Actually, I know it would because there were a few years where I attempted to set up MeatballWiki as the source of my professional reputation, which created a conflict of interest between my personal needs and the needs of the community that eventually led to a meltdown in the community. The same goes for any CommunityMember here. I am unlikely to DissuadeInteraction with Fridemar simply because he is not generating income from his interaction. I think it is abundantly clear that his motivation for being here is to express his ideas and find an interested audience.
Other organizations do have a direct SuperordinateGoal of creating wealth, but that is explicit and sets the boundaries of interaction. If the venture fails and money is lost, the interaction ends.
Money has a magical power to cleave the world into two: things you do for money and things you do from the heart. Being paid for things you do from the heart will quickly destroy your entire motivation for doing them. Conversely, I only want to invest my time and energy into money making ventures that will have a high return on investment for me. -- SunirShah
Personally, I'm not convinced that the introduction of money into a community would necessarily pervert the purpose of the community, or that being paid for things I do for love would necessarily destroy my motivation. I'm aware that there's a large body of evidence behind these statements, but perhaps a study of this subject -- and, in particular, a careful examination of the exceptions, and of the possible techniques and safeguards which might avoid these pitfalls -- would be appropriate for Meatball. -- NathanielThurston
Oh, it's absolutely appropriate for Meatball and fascinating and I do not mean to impede progress. However, the premises of the argument here are counterposed to my own premises of what roles money and community have, and so I thought to express my counterargument. -- SunirShah
If been bitten by the problem of MoneyAndCommunity during the last year, promoting the use of money, because certain goals in the real world can only be reached when certain resources are available. My counter-example would be the "red cross" organizations, where paid and unpaid work, paid and unpaid services merge together without unsurmountable problems. -- HelmutLeitner
Thank you Nathaniel, Helmut, Sunir you and all the other friendly and constructive peers are heartily welcome to a very special conversation on <->SocialDomaining, which combines theory with practice. -- FridemarPache
Fridemar, given Sunir's reservations (and some of my own), I would feel uncomfortable embarking on the practice of wikinomics without first favorably resolving the concerns which have been raised. -- NathanielThurston
Nathaniel, thank you for signalling to strive for harmony. Sharing your feelings, I am also motivated to maximize the common good, which applies to the whole field which we we all share in Meatball and beyond. -- FridemarPache
It occurs to me that perhaps there's an inadvertent straw-man in evidence here. My understanding is that CreatingAndSharingWealth is set within the context of a GiftEconomy or <->PredominantlyGiftEconomy; and that the counter-argument is from the perspective of the conventional MarketEconomy?. -- NathanielThurston
The people at Mahalo are building a database of useful information that, like most wiki, is freely available on the Internet for everyone to search and read. Like most wiki, it allows new people to show up and start adding content. And yet, unlike most wiki, it seems possible for people to get paid for this work.
What do you think about Mahalo? Does this look like a good way to create and share wealth? Where does the money come from -- is it entirely from advertisers? -- DavidCary
Hey David, thank you for this link and your question; as we appear to share the paradigm of compact wiki pages and this page is already too big, I suggest to outsource conversation to GoogleSideWiki, at least for my part: [GoogleSideWiki: Mahalo for CreatingAndSharingWealth] -- FridemarPache
I have talked in [GoogleSideWiki:CompetitionVsCooperation] about this.