From the Wikipedia Review: "People who are not the beneficiary of a "Received Truth" (myself included) seek truth, or at least an ever improving approximations of the truth, through various self correcting systems. These system include political democracy, free speech/press, science and market economies (not my personal favorite, but in fairness it belongs on the list). They each have mechanisms, (elections, discussion, experimentation, and value exchange) that provide an ever increasing level of information and the opportunity to use that information to improve the process in the next iteration of the process. A wiki, just not WP, but the content management technology itself, has many attractive features to people attracted to self correcting systems." Systems

I disagree when the author writes later: "All of these system can be distorted and even rendered useless by the creation of centers of concentrated power and influence."

I read the above to say, Exxon can and perhaps does monopolize the oil markets. When a product becomes less valuable (too expensive for what you get) for some of the reasons sited above and in the rest of the opinion, competition gives us a different better product. Should we be worried that WP might go spiraling into the ground and burn? No. 

The reason we really aren't all pawns in some greedy capitalists board game of life, is that competition, and I know some will be disappointed to hear this, not government, keeps this from happening. When someone tries to distort a market, they get a quick lesson from about Adam Smith and the invisible hand. A good definition of repression, is government at odds with the market. (See the former Soviet Union, and consider China and WP.)

In the present case, if Jimmy Wales or a material amount of admins flip out, WP may crash, but something will take its place. What may prevent this from happening (I am not saying it's impending) is Wales deep appreciation and understanding of markets.

I guess I am arguing for less oversite, and more faith in the individual. The author also I think says, that markets were a cause of slavery. I'd say one of the base definitions of a market is: Two individuals making a voluntary exchange. That wasn't what slavery was.

 

What did you think of this article?

Liked
Disliked
No Opinion