User:Perceval/Das Wikapital

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline, it simply reflects some opinions of its authors. Please update the page as needed, or discuss it on the talk page.

The fundamental framework under which Wikipedia works is essentially a capitalist system. The means of production are private: every individual wikipedian holds the resources which contribute to the finished product (i.e. the Wikipedia encyclopedia). Our individual knowledge and research drives the production forward, based on our own individual free agency. There is no compulsory collectivization or unionization. On the other hand, there are free associations such as wikiprojects and collaborations, which leverage wikipedians' comparative advantage and create economies of scale, respectively. New articles, the expansion of articles, and the maintenance of content are done entrepreneurially. The "market" rules are highly transparent and flexible, leading to a very low barrier to entry for new producers. There is also "protection of property" through mediation (e.g. talk pages, arbitration, requests for comment) and reversion of vandals.

Notably, this capitalist system does not protect the products once they are released—there is no patent or copyright or trademark system. Nor is there product ownership: Wikipedia content is free to all producers and outside readers to access, copy, and manipulate. All effort essentially goes toward the commons, the public domain. The only profit motive, so to speak, is the betterment of the encyclopedia and the pride of spreading knowledge through good articles on one's favorite subjects. This is the invisible hand of wikipedia.

There is somewhat of a form of private property, however, and that is one's user page. This is one's own domain, where the user has editorial and content control. There is even a very low key form of branding one's content: your username. Throughout each article's history, your username is appended to your producution. Brand value can even be devalued through impostors and sockpuppets.

Traditional encyclopedias (Britannica et al) could be considered command economies, as opposed to Wikipedia's capitalism. In these encyclopedias, a central authority decides on the articles to be covered, and employs designated experts to labor on each article. Publishing of the product remains subject to final central editorial control.

Despite being capitalist, one ought not confuse wikipedia with a normal democratic system. Daily decisions are nearly all deliberation/consensus based, not decided by voting. Furthermore, ultimate control of wikipedia rests with the benevolent dictator Jimbo Wales and his circle of stewards, developers, bureaucrats, and administrators. Wikipedia could be compared to Chile's economic miracle under Pinochet, except, you know, without the death squads.