zlacker

Well, its existence does prove it's possible!

I contribute to Wikipedia, and I don't consider my contributions to be "charity"; I contribute because I enjoy it. Even in the age of printing presses, copyright law was widely ignored, well into the 20thC. The USA didn't join the Berne Convention until 1989 (and they promptly went mad with copyright).

Yes, there's only one Wikipedia; but there are lots of copies, and lots of similar efforts. Yes, there's one Wikipedia, like there's one Mona Lisa. There are lots of things of which there's only one; in that sense, Wikipedia isn't remotely unique.

>>denton+(OP)
> I contribute to Wikipedia, and I don't consider my contributions to be "charity"; I contribute because I enjoy it.

Does your personal satisfaction pay the server bills too?

>>ethanb+k1
Of course not. But paying the server bills won't magically produce the excellent content that you value so much. That's produced by volunteers.

There's a tendency among some people to take the nostrums of economists about the aggregate behaviour of populations as if they described human nature, and to then go on and conclude that because human behaviour in aggregate can be understood in terms of economic incentives, that an individual human can only be motivated economically. I find that an impoverished and shallow outlook, and I think I'm happier for not sharing it.

>>denton+Lr
I don’t think “people tend to do things at higher quality and higher frequency when incentivized” is some esoteric economic theory.

I never made the claim that paying server bills would produce great content.

I never made the claim “an individual human can only be motivated economically.”

Your strategy for personal happiness is unrelated to what actually works in the real world at scale.