Broken Windows on the Internet

by on May 31, 2006 · 10 comments

Patrick Ross critiques a recent presentation by Yochai Benkler:

To begin with, he praised open source software (not surprisingly) and also the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. He noted that Nature had found it to be comparable to Britannica (no, he didn’t mention the stinging rebuttal later published by Britannica of that article.) He also praised the computational power of SETI@Home, which exceeds the fastest supercomputer by tapping unused computing capacity of volunteers. SETI@Home and Wikipedia don’t contribute in any meaningful way to the US economy, but he ranked them in social importance far higher than any commercial encyclopedia or proprietary supercomputer.

How do we know that Wikipedia and SETI@Home don’t contribute in any meaningful way to the U.S. economy? Apparently, because no money changed hands. By the same logic, the sun and the air don’t contribute in any meaningful way to the U.S. economy.

As PLN pointed out back in March, this is a prime specimen of the broken window fallacy (which was originally described by Bastiat) in action. The resources consumed during the creation of the Encyclop¦dia Britannica are a loss to the rest of society. If society can get an equivalent-quality encyclop¦dia for free (that is, by a process in which each participant finds participation rewarding enough to do so without charge), that benefits all of us, because the resources that would have been spent hiring people to write the Britannica can be deployed for other ends.

Incidentally, Britannica does not appear to have an entry on the broken window fallacy, and the Wikipedia entry on Bastiat is ten times as long as the corresponding Britannica entry. Wikipedia may not be contributing anything to “the economy,” but it’s certainly doing a good job of making a lot of information available to a large number of people. That certainly seems valuable to me!

  • http://terranova.blogs.com Greg Lastowka

    Fwiw, there’s a discussion of Yochai’s book going on over at Crooked Timber, including a review by Dan Hunter.

    link

    I agree with you (of course) that the Wikipedia model provides economic value, perhaps even more than Britannica provides. It strikes me, though, that the peer production & sharing model might have a disadvantage in producing campaign contributions. One thing about these particular broken windows is that the glaziers know how to lobby effectively, while the shopkeepers face some significant collective action problems.

  • Greg Lastowka

    Whoops, bungled the HTML for the link.

    Here’s the plain text: http://crookedtimber.org/2006/05/30/a-general-theory-of-information-policy/

  • http://terranova.blogs.com Greg Lastowka
  • Greg Lastowka

    Whoops, bungled the HTML for the link.

    Here’s the plain text:
    http://crookedtimber.org/2006/05/30/a-general-t…

  • enigma_foundry

    “How do we know that Wikipedia and SETI@Home don’t contribute in any meaningful way to the U.S. economy?”

    Obviously, they are of value to the economy. Just because they are not overtly monetized certainly does not mean they are not of value.

    “By the same logic, the sun and the air don’t contribute in any meaningful way to the U.S. economy.”

    Strongly recommend the book “The Future of Life” by Edward Wilson, The Future of Life, in which he does take a stab at valuing the biosphere.

    But, let’s get back to the reason these phenomena are so revolutionary–not because they have built an Encyclopedia (which is in fact very good, but I digress) or a super computer but because they have done so outside of the control infrastructure of the traditional hierarchies.

    That is why wikipedia, open source software, have been so vilified by those agents of the powerful traditional hierarchies.

    Examples of this vilification: Microsoft calling FOSS “cancerous”, Brittanica response to the Nature study, SCO suit against linux, and you can look at those apologists of the corporate power infrastructure attacking open source and Free Culture at such propaganda sites as IP Central every day…

  • http://enigmafoundry.wordpress.com eee_eff

    “How do we know that Wikipedia and SETI@Home don’t contribute in any meaningful way to the U.S. economy?”


    Obviously, they are of value to the economy. Just because they are not overtly monetized certainly does not mean they are not of value.


    “By the same logic, the sun and the air don’t contribute in any meaningful way to the U.S. economy.”


    Strongly recommend the book “The Future of Life” by Edward Wilson, The Future of Life, in which he does take a stab at valuing the biosphere.


    But, let’s get back to the reason these phenomena are so revolutionary–not because they have built an Encyclopedia (which is in fact very good, but I digress) or a super computer but because they have done so outside of the control infrastructure of the traditional hierarchies.


    That is why wikipedia, open source software, have been so vilified by those agents of the powerful traditional hierarchies.


    Examples of this vilification: Microsoft calling FOSS “cancerous”, Brittanica response to the Nature study, SCO suit against linux, and you can look at those apologists of the corporate power infrastructure attacking open source and Free Culture at such propaganda sites as IP Central every day…

  • http://www.ogre.nu/ Anton Sherwood

    If the absence of payment does not make Wikipedia valueless, neither does it make Wikipedia costless.

  • http://www.ogre.nu/ Anton Sherwood

    If the absence of payment does not make Wikipedia valueless, neither does it make Wikipedia costless.

  • http://www.abc-acupuncture.com/baxqorav tramadol

    81e31de21f46 Good work http://www.abc-acupuncture.com/baxqorav tramadol

  • http://www.abc-acupuncture.com/baxqorav tramadol

    81e31de21f46 Good work http://www.abc-acupuncture.com/baxqorav tramadol

Previous post:

Next post: