![]() | The article
Comedy of the commons was
nominated for
deletion.
The discussion was closed on 10 February 2016 with a consensus to
merge the content into
Tragedy of the anticommons. If you find that such action has not been taken promptly, please consider assisting in the merger instead of re-nominating the article for deletion. To discuss the merger, please use this talk page. Do not remove this template after completing the merger. A bot will replace it with {{
afd-merged-from}}. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Tragedy of the anticommons article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hickman, J. and Dolman, E.: "Resurrecting the Space Age: A State-Centered Commentary on the Outer Space Regime," Comparative Strategy, Vol. 21, No. 1, 2002. What has this got to do with the article? Mr. Jones 14:18, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
...there is no hierarchy among owners such that the decision of one owner can dominate those of other owners, forcing them to use their resources in ways they would not, if they were permitted free will by the authority.
This should discuss the input of additional information, rather than just describe centralised control as if it were the only solution. Mr. Jones 14:18, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
surely there are some juicy and enlightening examples? like the grazing cattle in Tragedy of the commons? and more familiar than Heller's empty russian shops? regards, High on a tree 01:48, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Copyrights generate many example of this phenomenon when *derivative works* are involved. Television shows which use music, plays based on books, movies based on plays based on books, etc., provide dozens of examples; as does computer software, where code based on a previous programmer's work is very common. In addition, in music the overlapping rights to a *song* and to the *recording* (phonogram) of the song can cause trouble. 24.59.111.200 14:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Porbably examples could be:
- 80% of money belongs to 5% of people (though tey are used by many of as in business processes..) - food and similar resources are also unproportional in vestern countries vs 3-rd World countries.. - historicaly, for. ex. Endgland, lords had lot's of land/property, while peasants -- very scare..
I think this issue is regulated by property taxes. If You don't use the property, You still have to pay taxes, so You'd better rent/sell your property to others to use/make_business.
Isnt Wikipedia a 'juicy' example of this concept? Many people feel that they have the right to edit and shape a given wiki page as they please, and the conflict results in disputes about how to form the page. You could argue about whether this results in 'waste', but I would say that if these conflicts did not arise then wikipedia would be more useful and therefore better utilized.
"This is the canonical justification for the takings clause in the US Constitution and eminent domain generally."
I would say this is incorrect and confusing the issues. Canonically, takings are to satisfy a public use, NOT to correct a market inefficiency. While much of the current backlash over eminent domain's use stems from its application in cases of market inefficiency (where properties are not reaching their highest and best use). Granted, many of Heller's arguments are critical of the use of takings in such instances. But to say that it is the basis of the takings clause is not supported by the law's text or long history.
This sentence is bad; the takings clause is a restriction on public domain, not a statement of the acceptability of public domain seizures. Removing the reference to the takings clause.
24.59.111.200
14:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Seems to me DVD players are a bad example. Considering the hundreds of brands of DVD players available worldwide, I'd say its hardly an under exploited market. The patents and copyrights parts also smell fishy. Its as though the author of these is attempting to grind an axe here.
This articles refers to certain things being 'wasted'. But isn't 'waste' subjective? It is, since value itself is subjective. Isn't this argument just saying the some individuals disagree with how other individuals allocate their own resources? This whole concept is a fallacy. Perhaps this article is best listed in a page relating to fallacies.
"Oh, I don't like how many sheets of toilet paper you use to wipe your ass! So many externalities!"
DrDimension 08:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The Chinese nail houses are not really an example of this. Yes, the economic use is being hampered by a single owner who refuses to sell, but a shopping center could be build without removing the house. The real issues with nail houses are access and utility rights, as it appears there is no such thing in China. In the United States, the developer is legally obligated to provide access and utilities to the holdout property.
71.212.22.51 ( talk) 14:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The assertion that:
In fact, a patent holder can often say that mere research is an infringing use, and demand a license fee even though the chance of developing a marketable product is slim.
is incorrect.
While it may claim infringement, the patent holder is not the arbiter in cases of patent dispute: that is the job of the courts. Demand of a license fee by the patent holder does not equate to automatic acceptance of payment by the alleged infringer, especially in drug discovery. 35 U.S.C. §271(e)(1) specifically states:
It shall not be an act of infringement to make, use, offer to sell, or sell within the United States or import into the United States a patented invention (other than a new animal drug or veterinary biological product (as those terms are used in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Act of March 4, 1913) ...) solely for uses reasonably related to the development and submission of information under a Federal law which regulates the manufacture, use, or sale of drugs
This " FDA safe harbour" usage has been established in pharmaceutical research in a US Supreme Court case from 2005, Merck KGaA, Petitioner v. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd., et al, which overturned a Federal Court upholding of a District Court decision to award damages, from which the decision was that:
The Court held that the use of patented compounds in preclinical studies is protected under [35 U.S.C.] §271(e)(1) at least as long as there is a reasonable basis to believe that the compound tested could be the subject of an FDA submission and the experiments will produce the types of information relevant to an IND or NDA. Daen ( talk) 14:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't every project previewing Veto rights suffer from this very effect? In the European Union 27 member states have to agree on every major decision. This is one reason, the EU is still seated in three different cities, which causes extra costs. Every time they try to quit one place, the affected country would oppose. So everyone suffers by trying to get out the best for themselves.-- Joschi ( talk) 16:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I've marked 2 sentences in article lead as {dubious}. Per WP:BURDEN, burden of evidence lies on the editor who adds or restores challenged material, so if no references are provided within reasonable time (usually 1 month is considered enough, but I'm certainly not in a hurry), I may proceed with re-removing them. As a side note: while I strongly suspect big portions of WP:OR/ WP:SYN there, without references it is difficult to argue, so let's wait for references and discuss if it is WP:OR/ WP:SYN then. Ipsign ( talk) 10:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
There are two elements to these marked sentences: (a) discussion of possible 'solutions'; this is quite possibly WP:SYN and should be sourced/removed, and (b) a 'broadening' of the article to include all cases in which too much private property leads to sub-optimal results. While (a) has a burden of proof, I don't see that (b) does, since the real problem is the strange name of the article; it actually must cover all such cases, just as "tragedy of the commons" would include all cases in which a lack of property rights leads to sub-optimality. I think that the confusion starts over whether this article should be discussing the term or the concept. If the article is discussing the terrible neologism "Tragedy of the anticommons" then there will hopefully be no citations found to include the general issue of sub-optimal outcomes under divided private property rights referencing this name. But this article should not be so restricted. That's because:
-- Wragge ( talk) 15:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
This article begins
That second definition is just plain wrong. The article
Tragedy of the commons begins
Such a situation involves plenty of rightsholders, perhaps too many, each valuing their own short-term self-interest above the community's long-term interests.
The article attributes the phrase to Michael Heller in his 1998 article. The abstract of that article is accessible directly from the
reference. There he says [list formatting added to bring out the parallel structures in Heller's text]
* [The abstract says "fight", evidently a typo.]
It's not a shortage of rightsholders that creates a tragedy of the commons, it's their combined overuse of the resource. I've rewritten the first paragraph to correct the definition, express the two definitions in parallel, and generally tighten up the writing. (The verb "mirror" as quoted above means "same sort of thing", the very opposite of Heller's expression "mirror image". Isn't English fun?) --
Thnidu (
talk)
07:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Both theories ' comedy of the commons' and 'tragedy of the anticommons' discuss way in which the commons can be beneficial and what is lost when there is a lack of commons. Only one article is needed. However, the article should be renamed see section below. Jonpatterns ( talk) 12:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
They could have headings each, and thereby the accessibility of users would be improved by having all this in one place, and the context of a single article. To someone just wanting know about common land, all these articles coming up on a search is very confusing. Dougsim ( talk) 17:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
There are a number of theories that critique the tragedy of the commons it would be good to have one article covering them all. Jonpatterns ( talk) 12:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Why is a good outcome of common ownership a 'Comedy of the commons', when the good outcome out for private ownership 'Successful capitalism'? Jonpatterns ( talk) 16:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Re [1]. Seriously. This table is original research, as I've repeatedly pointed out on all the articles that GliderMaven is trying to spam this into.
The idea that "Tragedy of the anticommons" is "related to" these three other "concepts" is original research. It's unsourced. It's one Wikipedia user's opinion. Show me a source which actually says "Tragedy of the anticommons is related to these three other concepts"
The idea that there's a 2x2 categorization of these concepts is original research.
The idea that some of these concepts, like the "comedy of the commons", are notable is original research.
The idea is that this conceptualization is useful enough to be presented in a table is original research. For example "successful capitalism", whatever the funk that is, probably entails components of BOTH public and private ownership.
Etc.
It's simple. Find a source which has a table like this in it, or at least a source which categorizes these very concepts like this. Otherwise it's... original research. Unsourced original research. And that gets removed. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 00:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Duch-Brown et al (2017) discuss the anticommons in their European Commission Joint Research Centre (JRC) working paper on data property rights. [1] Someone may like to work that material into this article? With best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison ( talk) 12:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
References
added info below, feel free to critique/remove as you see fit.
Added as an elaboration of definition "Here, the right of an individual to exclude others from accessing or using a resource results in the underutilisation of a resource. The lack of synergy between use rights and exclusion rights causes a net welfare loss, as the individuals exercising their right to exclude do not completely internalise the cost of excluding others."
Another paragraph in short description "Based on the non-conformity between use and exclusion rights, Parisi, Schultz and Depoorter (2002) have presented two cases to model the anticommons tragedy: simultaneous and sequential. The simultaneous case is where multiple individuals exercise their exclusion rights simultaneously as well as individually on the same level of the value chain. For example, multiple co-owners with veto rights on a shared resource. The sequential case is where exclusion rights are exercised in successive order on different levels of the value chain. For example, entities on a hierarchy exercising their veto power on a proposal."
Another paragraph under examples "The Greek government-debt crisis demonstrates the tragedy of the anticommons in the political economy. Sixteen countries in the Eurozone agreed to contribute to the bailout program. Here, coordination is dependent on the availability of information. Given that there is no information asymmetry and knowledge is shared between each country, this means the agreement of the bailout plan is enforceable and executable. However, each donor country failed to coordinate and carried out their own separate plans. This competitiveness and non-cooperative approach of the Eurozone countries resulted in a coordination fail and exacerbated Greece’s government debt crisis."