[Foundation-l] Jimmy Wales in the news

[SlimVirgin]

On 3/7/08, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> If could have been kept as a for-profit but run as if it were a
>  non-profit and would probably do almost as well as it has done, and
>  then once it gets big enough, start milking it for all it's worth.
>  Some people would have avoided working on it if it wasn't owned by a
>  registered charity, but probably not many. The content is free
>  regardless of who owns the site, and I think that's what matters to
>  most people, as long as someone isn't actively exploiting their work.

I agree. I had no idea when I started who owned what, and I didn't
care. The social and moral value of the project exists independently
of the money angle. And if it had been run with almost all the profits
going to good causes, it would still have been a very attractive
project to volunteer for.

Antony said earlier that, as a Randian, Jimbo would act only out of
self-interest and not altruism, but this is a false dichotomy. People
who act altruistically want to do so at some level, or else they
wouldn't. As philosophers put it, all reasons for action are internal
reasons, meaning they are based on the actor's desires, needs, and
interests, the argument being that a reason for action that has no
emotional resonance for you will fail to be magnetic enough to move
you to act. According to that argument, we are all psychological
Randians, at least a little. :)

Sarah