<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 6/3/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Jason Calacanis</b> <<a href="mailto:jason@calacanis.com">jason@calacanis.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
I've debated Benkler on this point, and at Wikimania in Boston this<br>summer one of the speakers (before or after Benkler) made a point of<br>demonstrating that folks involved in open source software projects<br>participated because they thought their participation would get them
<br>some sort of financial return down the road (or something to that<br>effect--anyone remember?).</blockquote><div><br>Well, I think you get a mix of folks. I, for one, participate for several reasons: the possibility of future financial gain, the possibility of some degree of fame/glory, and there's also an element of "help change the world".
</div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">[ Note: I'm not saying Wikipedia should move to a paid model, but I<br>think if Wikipedia allowed OPT-IN advertising they could hire 10-25
<br>editors f/t to work from home and administer the system. It would be a<br>start. ]<br><br></blockquote></div>Hmm... I think that would blow up the model. I doubt the editors are in it for financial gain - what would be the path? It's a little easier to imagine financial gain for developers. I don't think paying editors is a bad idea, but I think if you pay some of the editors, it will be a disincentive for a lot of others would would otherwise volunteer. "I don't need to worry about this - they've got John Doe on the payroll, he'll take care of it."
<br><br>Aerik<br>