On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 2:47 AM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
Anthony wrote:> As for how sharing
your name is better for everyone, I think
it's fairly clear that a work
non-fiction is better if you know who wrote it,
and further I think it's
also clear that when someone creates a great work it is beneficial to
who created it so that one can find more works by
that person. So that's
how it benefits society.
Whether you know who wrote a work or not it's still the same work.
Maybe, but if a work lists its authors it's not the same work as if it
Following your line
of reasoning we should all bow down before the Encyclopedia Britannica
and give up Wikipedia because EB is better.
Absolutely not. EB has not adapted its model to the Internet at all, and
it's very unlikely it will. Just because there are some things EB does
better doesn't mean it is overall better.
Unless they decided to radically change their model and start over from
scratch, EB will never be the size of Wikipedia. It will never be as
up-to-date as Wikipedia. No, with regard to lack of attribution I think
Wikipedia has to worry much more about Knol than EB. Of course, Wikipedia
has about a 7 1/2 year head start on Knol. Pure momentum might be enough
for it to win that race, if all you care about is being better than your
Sure, a person who likes
the works of a particular author will seek out more of his works, but
that can be much more about better marketing than a better book.
Where's the benefit to society.
Where's the benefit to society in marketing? It's only because of marketing
that many of the products you use can be made, and this is especially true
with intellectual products, which benefit tremendously from economies of
scale. As you youself imply, just having a better book isn't enough. You
have to convince people to try your better book. Life doesn't work like the
Field of Dreams. Honestly promoting your work when you've done a great job