Comments on: No Membership without Ownership! http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/12/31/no-membership-without-ownership/ Weblog about the Citizendium project and its Citizens. Fri, 25 Jul 2008 00:17:42 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1.2 By: Citizendium Blog » Strong collaboration and filthy lucre: A reply to Ars Technica http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/12/31/no-membership-without-ownership/#comment-64837 Citizendium Blog » Strong collaboration and filthy lucre: A reply to Ars Technica Mon, 31 Dec 2007 20:42:06 +0000 http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/12/31/no-membership-without-ownership/#comment-64837 [...] the next post for [...] […] the next post for […]

]]> By: Sage (User:Ragesoss) http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/12/31/no-membership-without-ownership/#comment-65167 Sage (User:Ragesoss) Wed, 02 Jan 2008 03:31:35 +0000 http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/12/31/no-membership-without-ownership/#comment-65167 Nice post. I mostly agree with the principles you put forward here, but I think it's maybe a bit unfair to lump craigslist together with YouTube, Wikia, Facebook and the others. Unlike those others, craigslist doesn't serve ads; it makes money from its users, but only from the small portion of its users that are advertising jobs or whatever else they charge for these days. They've been very successful at maintaining the noncommercial atmosphere that earned them their early reputation. I guess in principle there is no difference between serving general ads through AdSense and listing jobs ads with payment going directly to craigslist, but craigslist only serves its paid-for content to those who are looking for it. The fact that Newmark is getting rich off the craigslist community doesn't bother me in the same way that the businesses of YouTube or Facebook do. But maybe that's just because craigslist has a nice cushy anti-corporate corporate image. Nice post. I mostly agree with the principles you put forward here, but I think it’s maybe a bit unfair to lump craigslist together with YouTube, Wikia, Facebook and the others. Unlike those others, craigslist doesn’t serve ads; it makes money from its users, but only from the small portion of its users that are advertising jobs or whatever else they charge for these days. They’ve been very successful at maintaining the noncommercial atmosphere that earned them their early reputation. I guess in principle there is no difference between serving general ads through AdSense and listing jobs ads with payment going directly to craigslist, but craigslist only serves its paid-for content to those who are looking for it. The fact that Newmark is getting rich off the craigslist community doesn’t bother me in the same way that the businesses of YouTube or Facebook do. But maybe that’s just because craigslist has a nice cushy anti-corporate corporate image.

]]> By: Aaron S. http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/12/31/no-membership-without-ownership/#comment-65182 Aaron S. Wed, 02 Jan 2008 04:48:34 +0000 http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/12/31/no-membership-without-ownership/#comment-65182 With regards to serious content, yes, I might agree that a non-profit nature should be *encouraged*. Users are being pretty nice by adding it to things like Wikipedia and CZ. I am sure that some really enjoy it, but I do think a lot of people just want good information to be out there. Any possible profit made should be used to both secure the relevant foundation (like a small emergence trust) and to improve the software. If the goal is to be a charity by providing goods to everyone where being a member means primarily doing *work*, then one might as well go all out and be a real charity (free & non-profit). Also, sites that give "objective" information are best supported by the public itself. Plenty of garbage cites spout of nonsense and just fuel themselves with advertisements. I would say "free & non-profit" is the high ground there. For networking sites, like Facebook/MySpace, being a user is a perk. My account is useful for staying in contact with people. If the cost is Ads, I have no problem with that. It is not serious enough to be a charity and I am not interested in "donating to Facebook"... For YouTube, creating content can involve anything from fun to serious work. Having an account has the perks of friends, groups, and sharing. Also, this is not like Wikipedia, where content is notable. Heck, you can post yourself! You can post your views on things in a fun medium. And people like that; people want that. So, primarily, being a user empowers people more so, and if the cost of that is Ads, then I am fine with that. Those look like fair businesses to me. If they are "immoral", then I don't see how any businesses can really be not "immoral". With regards to serious content, yes, I might agree that a non-profit nature should be *encouraged*.

Users are being pretty nice by adding it to things like Wikipedia and CZ. I am sure that some really enjoy it, but I do think a lot of people just want good information to be out there. Any possible profit made should be used to both secure the relevant foundation (like a small emergence trust) and to improve the software. If the goal is to be a charity by providing goods to everyone where being a member means primarily doing *work*, then one might as well go all out and be a real charity (free & non-profit). Also, sites that give “objective” information are best supported by the public itself. Plenty of garbage cites spout of nonsense and just fuel themselves with advertisements. I would say “free & non-profit” is the high ground there.

For networking sites, like Facebook/MySpace, being a user is a perk. My account is useful for staying in contact with people. If the cost is Ads, I have no problem with that. It is not serious enough to be a charity and I am not interested in “donating to Facebook”…

For YouTube, creating content can involve anything from fun to serious work. Having an account has the perks of friends, groups, and sharing. Also, this is not like Wikipedia, where content is notable. Heck, you can post yourself! You can post your views on things in a fun medium. And people like that; people want that. So, primarily, being a user empowers people more so, and if the cost of that is Ads, then I am fine with that.

Those look like fair businesses to me. If they are “immoral”, then I don’t see how any businesses can really be not “immoral”.

]]> By: Philip Hunt http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/12/31/no-membership-without-ownership/#comment-68637 Philip Hunt Fri, 11 Jan 2008 18:00:34 +0000 http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/12/31/no-membership-without-ownership/#comment-68637 Larry asks: <i>"I mean, really, why should we (Internet volunteers) let the owners of for-profit corporations, which are not directly answerable to us, get rich from our contributions, and without compensating us? Does that make the slightest bit of sense?"</i> This is a question of practical interest to me, since I am planning an inclusionist fork of Wikipedia. Web hosting is expensive, and I am not independently wealthy, so I plan to fund the site through ads. In one way, the answer to the second question is "yes", at least for many people. Millions put content up on MySpace, Flickr, YouTube, Facebook, etc, in the knowledge that these websites are for-profit concerns. Clearly, it makes sense to them; and who am I to question other peoples desires and motivations? (One thing I do dislike, however, is the way some of these websites don't allow user-generated content to be re-used by others. For example you can't just download the file containing a YouTube clip, something I find annoying, particularly when my net connection is slow and the video becomes jerky. And book reviews on Amazon can't be ported to other websites, which is why I won't write one there -- user-generated content should be available under an open content license). I do like the idea of content creators of Web 2.0 sites getting some tangible benefit if the site is successful. I'm not sure however what is the best way to achieve that. If, for example my wiki encyclopedia made a legally binding offer of shares in the company for editors who commit a certain number of edits, there would be a big influx of people who would game the system. What might would however, is a vague (and not legally binding) understanding that good editors and administrators would be rewarded at IPO-time. Larry asks: “I mean, really, why should we (Internet volunteers) let the owners of for-profit corporations, which are not directly answerable to us, get rich from our contributions, and without compensating us? Does that make the slightest bit of sense?”

This is a question of practical interest to me, since I am planning an inclusionist fork of Wikipedia. Web hosting is expensive, and I am not independently wealthy, so I plan to fund the site through ads.

In one way, the answer to the second question is “yes”, at least for many people. Millions put content up on MySpace, Flickr, YouTube, Facebook, etc, in the knowledge that these websites are for-profit concerns. Clearly, it makes sense to them; and who am I to question other peoples desires and motivations?

(One thing I do dislike, however, is the way some of these websites don’t allow user-generated content to be re-used by others. For example you can’t just download the file containing a YouTube clip, something I find annoying, particularly when my net connection is slow and the video becomes jerky. And book reviews on Amazon can’t be ported to other websites, which is why I won’t write one there — user-generated content should be available under an open content license).

I do like the idea of content creators of Web 2.0 sites getting some tangible benefit if the site is successful. I’m not sure however what is the best way to achieve that. If, for example my wiki encyclopedia made a legally binding offer of shares in the company for editors who commit a certain number of edits, there would be a big influx of people who would game the system. What might would however, is a vague (and not legally binding) understanding that good editors and administrators would be rewarded at IPO-time.

]]> By: Making profit from user-generated content « Amused Cynicism http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/12/31/no-membership-without-ownership/#comment-68676 Making profit from user-generated content « Amused Cynicism Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:42:17 +0000 http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/12/31/no-membership-without-ownership/#comment-68676 [...] and YouTube. But this practise is not without controversy; in a thoughtful article, Larry Sanger asks: I mean, really, why should we (Internet volunteers) let the owners of for-profit corporations, [...] […] and YouTube. But this practise is not without controversy; in a thoughtful article, Larry Sanger asks: I mean, really, why should we (Internet volunteers) let the owners of for-profit corporations, […]

]]> By: Patrick Anderson http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/12/31/no-membership-without-ownership/#comment-74888 Patrick Anderson Thu, 31 Jan 2008 22:30:23 +0000 http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/12/31/no-membership-without-ownership/#comment-74888 Are you serious about allowing a peasant such as myself the ability to purchase *controlling* shares of real ownership in the corporation behind Citizendium? If that is true, you may be interested in http://p2pfoundation.net/User_Ownership which attempts to describe why your claim is such a good one. Patrick Anderson President, Personal Sovereignty Foundation http://EcoComics.org Are you serious about allowing a peasant such as myself the ability to purchase *controlling* shares of real ownership in the corporation behind Citizendium?

If that is true, you may be interested in http://p2pfoundation.net/User_Ownership which attempts to describe why your claim is such a good one.

Patrick Anderson
President, Personal Sovereignty Foundation
http://EcoComics.org

]]> By: Citizendium Blog » Citizendium is different http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/12/31/no-membership-without-ownership/#comment-99789 Citizendium Blog » Citizendium is different Thu, 01 May 2008 20:08:35 +0000 http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/12/31/no-membership-without-ownership/#comment-99789 [...] (By the way, see also “No membership without ownership!“) [...] […] (By the way, see also “No membership without ownership!“) […]

]]>