Talk:Tragedy of the commons and Dolphin (character): Difference between pages

Revision as of 19:39, 2 November 2005

Revision as of 20:17, 9 November 2005

Line 1:

{{cleanup-date|August 2005}}

{{authoronlinesource2005|section=April 11-21

'''Dolphin''' is a [[fictional character]], a [[DC Comics]] [[superheroine]].

| author=Steigerwald, Bill

| title=Four economic precepts for everyday life

| org=Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

| url=http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/columnists/steigerwald/s_324660.html

| date=April 17, 2005 }}

{{Superherobox| <!--Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics-->

From [[:Tragedy of the commons|Tragedy of the commons]]

image=[[Image:Dolphin_comics.jpg]]

|caption=Dolphin in her trademark outfit

|comic_color=background:#8080ff

|character_name=Dolphin

|real_name=Unknown

|publisher=[[DC Comics]]<BR>

|debut=Showcase #79

|creators=Jay Scott Pike

|alliance_color=background:#ffc0c0

|status=

|alliances=[[Tempest]]

|previous_alliances= Forgotten Heroes, [[Aquaman]]

|aliases=

|relatives=[[Tempest]], (husband) Cerdian (son)

|powers= artificially adapted for deep subaquatic life: underwater breathing, superhuman strength, resilience to deep water pressures

|}}

==[[Secret Origins]]==

"By cooperating, every individual agrees not to seek more than its share. Defection happens when an individual

Dolphin (real name unknown) was a very young girl when she fell overboard from a cruise ship ([[Secret Origins]] #50) only to be saved from drowning when a mysterious [[alien]] race abducted her to use as an experimental prototype for a subaquatic humanoid race. In the course of these experiments, she acquired gills, webbed fingers, superhuman strength, resilence to deep water pressures, and a slowed aging process.

realizes that it's in its interest to use more than its share of public property."

When the alien scientists suddenly abandoned the experiment, Dolphin escaped their underwater lab. Oblivious to her former humanity, the [[feral]] young Dolphin scavenged underwater for her livlihood, finding her trademark short blue-jeans and white shirt in a sunken ship. She grew into young womanhood living an isolated, lonely life, until the day the crew of an [[oceanology]] vessel saved her from a near lethal encounter with a [[dolphin]]-killing [[shark]].

The crew of the ship tried to educate and care for the girl they'd dubbed "Dolphin", but her utter lack of contact with either humans or Atlanteans had left her [[mute]]. Though she grew to understand spoken language fairly quickly, the act of speech itself remained beyond her. Then, a young female [[doctor]] on the crew had the bright idea to instruct her in [[American Sign Language|sign language]]. Finally able to communicate, Dolphin explained what she could of herself and her story, and expressed her desire to resume her undersea life. At some point, Dolphin finally mastered spoken language, (especially when she started having contact with the superheroic community) but never lost her shyness and reluctance to speak. She has since been a woman of few words.

:I do not like that quote; it has an obvious flaw, being that it is not in his interest to take more than his share. Such an act would break the trust people have in him, thus making any cooperation, which is invariably benefical to every group, impossible with that individual. --[[User:Guizzy|Guizzy]] 00:32, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

==The Crisis Years==

These "its" sound really weird. Does [[:Wikipedia|Wikipedia]] have any usage/grammar guidelines we can refer to?

Dolphin has stayed mostly on the fringes of the superheroic community, although she was a member of the Forgotten Heroes until their dissolution, and fought alongside them during the ''[[Crisis on Infinite Earths]].''

==Meeting Aquaman==

:You are right; its is only to be used if there is specifically no gender to the owner of the object, and not the gender is variable. In this case, the neutral masculine possessive form should be assumed to be the most appropriate.

During the [[Zero Hour (comics)|Zero Hour]] events, she met [[Aquaman]], and took part in the battle against [[Charybdis (DC Comics)|Charybdis]], a villain interested in the aquatic powers of the two heroes. When Charybdis, after robbing Aquaman of his [[telepathic]] powers, stuck Aquaman's hand in a pool of water teeming with [[piranha|piranhas]], the normally passive Dolphin was forced to shoot the madman. She then escorted Aquaman and a wounded [[Aqualad]] back to Atlantis for medical attention.

Afterwards, she became a supporting character in the Aquaman comic book, and soon won the affections of an Aquaman embittered by the loss of his hand. Over time, she came out of her shell, and displayed a more energetic and bubbly, though naive, personality.

:I wrote that. I'm portuguese, be free to correct me. [[user:Joao|Joao]]

In issue #25 of Aquaman volume 3 it was revealed that [[Kordax]], an evil [[merman]] ancestor of Aquaman's, had secretly set Dolphin free from the lab, and used mind control to prompt her to infiltrate the royal court and kill Aquaman as the agent of his revenge on the royal house of Atlantis. The strong-willed Dolphin broke free of his control, and her romantic involvment with the king of Atlantis grew into love.

Dolphin remained Aquaman's lover until [[Mera]], Aquaman's wife, returned from her exile in another dimension called the Netherworld. In the same period, Aqualad, now calling himself [[Aqualad|Tempest]], returned from several years of extradimensional [[magic]] studies with increased powers and confidence, winning Dolphin's heart with a kiss. Though initially taken aback, Aquaman blessed the relationship. Eventually, Dolphin became pregnant by Tempest, and the two were married in an Atlantean ceremony attended by Tempest's second family, the [[Titans (comics)|Titans]].

----

I've fixed them. [[:John Lynch|John Lynch]]

----

==Starting a family life==

It looks that the expression "the tragedy of the commons" comes from Garrett Hardin's article "The Tragedy of the Commons," Garrett Hardin, Science, 162(1968):1243-1248. Quote from the article:

Dolphin gave birth to a son, whom Aquaman named Cerdian (after Cerdia, a surface nation annexed by Atlantis). The weight of new familial responsibilities initially strained the relationship between Dolphin and Tempest. These tensions came to a head when Dolphin demanded Tempest choose between his duties as a hero and his duties as a father and husband. Tempest complied, and quit the Titans. When Aquaman was exiled for his role in the sinking of Atlantis, the family fell under suspicion as friends of the deposed king. The new sorcerous rulers deemed Dolphin and her family "collaborationists" and put them under house arrest. As of recent issues, this goverment has been overthrown, and Dolphin and her family live happily in a free Atlantis.

[[Category:DC Comics superheroes]]

"The rebuttal to the invisible hand in population control is to be found in a scenario first sketched in a little-known Pamphlet in

{{DC-Comics-stub}}

1833 by a mathematical amateur named William Forster Lloyd (1794-1852). [6] We may well call it "the tragedy of the

commons," using the word "tragedy" as the philosopher Whitehead used it [7]: "The essence of dramatic tragedy is not

unhappiness. It resides in the solemnity of the remorseless working of things." He then goes on to say, "This inevitableness of

destiny can only be illustrated in terms of human life by incidents which in fact involve unhappiness. For it is only by them that

the futility of escape can be made evident in the drama.""

http://www.dieoff.org/page95.htm

My interpretation of this, is that mathematical amateur named William Forster Lloyd used the overexploitation of the commons as an example, but the expression was used by the first time by Hardin. [[user:Joao|Joao]]

:Hardin's essay is often mentioned by people who have perhaps never read it, and who might not agree with its thesis. I think it is appropriate to add parenthetically that the essay calls for coerced birth control to prevent human overpopulation. [[User:Willmcw|Will McW]] 00:01, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

----

The following text seemed very obscure to me, so I decided to put it here until someone can explain what it might mean...

''[[Free software]] and colloborative projects like [[Wikipedia]] prove that for many digital commons the tragedy becomes a comedy.''

- [[User:R Lowry|R Lowry]] 18:06, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It means that collaborative projects are not affected by the so called Tragedy. --[[User:Guizzy|Guizzy]] 00:32, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

----

== Possible example to include ==

An example was just removed from the PD page which is claimed to actually be a 'tragedy' example. See [[Talk:Prisoner's_dilemma#Water_shortage:_Bad_example]]. I've copied the deleted text below in case it is appropriate for this article.

:Another example would be hoarding supplies of an essential item during a shortage. Let's say that all our tap water gets poisoned, somehow, and everyone has to rely on bottled water from supermarkets. Rationally, each person knows that they should limit their purchases of bottled water for the period of the shortage (ie, they should 'co-operate'), because if everybody rushes to the supermarket and stocks up on water (ie, if they 'defect') supplies will quickly run out &mdash; so that, in the long-run, there will be nothing left for anyone. However, each person also fears that hoarding is precisely what everybody else will be doing; therefore, rationally, they know that if they are to be sure of securing any supply of water at all they had better go and stock up too.

:This scenario fits the PD payoff matrix outlined above: ''defection when others co-operate'' (T) means you can keep on getting a generous supply of drinking water repeatedly, because others are restricting their consumption; ''mutual co-operation'' (R) would bring the reward of a moderate amount of drinking water for everyone, over an extended period; ''mutual defection'' (P) would mean that everyone gets a lot to start off with but they probably all die of thirst soon enough thereafter; ''co-operation when others defect'' (S) means you end up with hardly any water, because it has all been snapped up by other people.

[[User:Wolfman|Wolfman]] 18:31, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

:: Thanks for bringing this text over. As the original author of the above water shortage example, I was a little disappointed to see it removed from the [[Prisoner's dilemma]] article, tho' I didn't protest because I think the reason was a fair one. The second paragraph presumably wouldn't belong in this article, as it refers specifically to the PD payoff matrix, but I see nothing wrong with using the first paragraph here as a 'tragedy' example. However, since I obviously have an interest in saying that I'll wait for a few days before making the change, in case anyone comes up with any objections. [[User:R Lowry|R Lowry]] 19:18, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

::: OK, it's done. [[User:R Lowry|R Lowry]] 20:41, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

:: I disagree that this is a good example. The term "Tragedy of the Commons" was introduced for a situation where the overall amount of a usually replenishing resource is diminished by over-use (as also stated in the lead paragraph). No such thing occurs in the quoted water example; water is not lost but "only" distributed unfairly. That may be a tragedy, but does not fit here.

== Historical Commons ==

Perhaps the article should contain some example of commons that didn't result in tragedy.

In the alpine region, most of the land (mainly forest and high pastures) was communally owned by a village or group of villages. Regulations kept under control the exploitation of the shared resource, although population has been for long time near the subsistence level.

See ''R. McC Netting "Balancing on a Alp"''

On the other hand, there's the [[Easter Island]] case.

The defintion of "commoner" here, that it is a subset of the general public is at odds with [[commoner]]? -- PL 15/12 23:08

=== False history? ===

My problem with the historical part of this article is it doesn't match what little I know about the way that the law of commons worked (and of course works, because they still exist) in England and Wales.

Essentially there are two kinds of right. From memory about 10% of common rights are "at large" and amount to a right to put a fixed number of a particular kind of animal on the common. They were property and could be traded (contrary to what is said in the article).

Most rights were rights of "levancy and couchancy" -- the right to put animals of a particular type was attached to a plot of land. The number of animals you could overwinter on that land (hence "levancy and couchancy") was the number you could put on the common the rest of the year. The theory being that external factors would be taken into account so that you could put more animals on in a good year than a bad one. This right was, historically although not any more, attached to land and not "at large", though one could still say it was "property".

However in both cases the right to put animals on the common was limited. There was no "tragedy of the commons". The phrase being an example of the totally idiotic view that modern intellectuals have of the mediaevals, who were not stupid and would have been well aware of the problem of allowing too many animals on the common against the common good. Its like believeing that mediaeval people thought the world was flat -- it says more about the ignorance of modern people than of their predecessors.

PS: I am a English property lawyer, so I am quite sure about the law part of this.

[[User:Francis Davey|Francis Davey]] 19:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:Please, '''be bold''' and correct the text as you think best. The fact is that there are two stories here- the historical commons, and the metaphorical commons. The man who created the metaphor (at least in modern day), was not a property lawyer, he was an American scientist, and probably had a faulty view of how the commons worked. Cheers, -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 22:40, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, what I've been told is that the commons worked too well for individuals who joined the collective, which is why parliment had to enact enclosure laws, in order to dis-enfranchise people working their way up the ladder, and to be able to sell of the land to rich landowners to expand sheep production. In Scotland, they were *pissed*. Of course I don't have a ready source for that, but maybe that should be looked into.<br>

Also, the 'tragedy of the commons' was a propoganda piece published to throw-off people who were against wholesale appropriation. Kinda like 'survival of the fittest', which was from a political tract to justify takings from the whole of society, was grafted onto Darwin's evolutionary theory.<br>

~ender 2003-04-14 02:52 MST

:If you are referring to Hardin's essay, "The Tragedy of The Commons", then you should know it has nothing to do with property or appropriations. The "commons" in that essay is the gene pool. Hardin is arguing against the ability of anyone to add to the population, and in favor of state-controlled reproduction. Cheers, -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 19:31, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

:: OTOH, it has been cited in many, many other contexts. This fact should be examined in the article. [[User:MrJones|Mr. Jones]] 19:00, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

:::That has not been a problem in the past. In fact, for a long time there was no reference to the actual content of the essay, and even now it is virtually a footnote. Hardin's metaphor is useful far beyond his intended purpose, a purpose that may embarrass some of those who quote it. -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 19:15, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

::Got a link to that paper? I don't believe that was the information I was reading (but I'm willing to check). I was reading about sheep and enclosure laws specifically (ie: England ramping up production to dominate the trade).

::~ender 2005-05-02 18:03:MST

:::Yes, see the first link in the list of "External links". This goes straight to it: [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/162/3859/1243]. -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 03:54, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

==Digital commons==

''Many people argue that the 'tragedy of the commons' principle does not apply to certain aspects of the digital world, because sharing information and software with other people does not decrease the amount that is available for others. Indeed, as the writer [[Eric S. Raymond]], in an essay called ''The Magic Cauldron'' [http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/magic-cauldron/] has pointed out, in the case of [[open source]] software more widespread use actually tends to increase the usefulness of a product &mdash; the more people that are finding and correcting bugs, the better it is for everybody. Raymond has described this process as the ''inverse commons'' (see also: [[network effect]]). A similar process may be observed in collaborative, [[open content]] projects like the [[Wikipedia]] encyclopedia.''

I'm not sure what this has to do with the digital world. Furthermore, it seems to be a strawman. Does anyone argue that the tragedy of the commons ''does'' occur in these situations? [[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]] [[User:Anthony_DiPierro/warning|(see warning)]] 01:00, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

: ([[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 21:05, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)) I restored the para, but only because I objected to the gross language from POlyglut. But I don't understand your arguments against it: the connection to the digital world seems obvious.

::It seems to me that some misidentify copyright law as solving a tragedy of the commons. That's just not true in the first place. Copyright law is designed to resolve a [[free rider problem]], not a tragedy of the commons. The difference, as is somewhat explained here, is that sharing information does not decrease the amount that is available for others. But like I said, that's really a strawman argument. Moreover, what I really don't understand is why this is somehow specific to the digital world. Whether digital or analog, sharing information doesn't decrease the amount that is available for others.

::Of course, maybe this isn't about copyright law in the first place. I'm kind of guessing, but copyright law isn't even mentioned here.

::And, of course, the tragedy of the commons '''does''' occur in the digital world, in areas other than that of information. For instance, spam has caused a tragedy of the commons with regard to email.

::Finally, I figured your restoration of the comment was more due to the way in which Polyglut removed the text. But that paragraph was already one which was bothering me, and after looking at it again I'm just not convinced it should stay, at least not without being clarified. [[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]] [[User:Anthony_DiPierro/warning|(see warning)]] 21:51, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

::: ([[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 22:05, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)) I don't understand why you have introduced copyright. But I'm not desperately happy with the para either.

::Open source, open content, these are terms which are related to copyright. [[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]] [[User:Anthony_DiPierro/warning|(see warning)]] 22:42, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

--

i added the following comment:

<<the digital commons, are properganda of the wikipedian fuckfaces, as usual. basically, you'll see such in any article these OpenSourcers can remotely insert their shit. Xah [[User:P0lyglut|Xah Lee]] 15:01, 2004 Aug 22 (UTC)>>

and it got deleted by Anthony DiPierro. Since when do OpenSource fuckfaces not only insert properganda into articles and delete opposing edits, and now censor arguments in the discussion section? Is it because it contain swearing, fuckfaces? [[User:P0lyglut|Xah Lee]] 23:04, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)

: ([[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 09:11, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)) You'll generally find swearing counterproductive, as it is in this case. Being able to spell propaganda would help, too.

:I didn't find anything useful in your comment, but if you choose to readd it I won't fight with you about it. By the way, you might want to note that I'm the one arguing for the deletion of this content, not the one adding it. In fact, as there doesn't appear to be anyone arguing for inclusion, and I can't think of a way to distill this down into something appropriate for Wikipedia (NPOV, verifiable, not original research, related to the topic), I'm going to delete it now and see what happens. As for the profanity, we do have a rule against unnecessary profanity, ([[Wikipedia:Profanity]]), as well as one against personal attacks ([[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]]). [[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]] [[User:Anthony_DiPierro/warning|(see warning)]] 11:56, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

-- An argument in favor of "Open Source or Open information" paragraph:

The idea of open sharing of resources is always looked upon with some distrust by humans. And not without good reasons: the "Tragedy of the Commons" is a vivid illustration of some of these reasons. Given that context, it seems nice to point to a ___domain where these reasons do not apply very strongly. Forms a nice counterpoint. As remarked by another poster, it can be put in terms of "information sharing" with Open Source software only as an example.

=== Property and tradeability ===

Since I last edited any of this, someone has altered it based on a US-centric misundersting of [[property]]. For the record, the [[property]] article contains this: "Property is defined as the right to use, enjoy or possess a determinant thing, and the right to exclude others from doing the same." This does <i>not</i> require tradeability; in fact, the second part is merely an implication of the first.

[[Property]] implies tradeability if, and only if, the thing in question can only be enjoyed by being traded, the way you don't get any benefit from money if you can't spend it.

:quibble: You can get value from [[money]], for example you can use paper [[fiat money]] as notepaper, wallpaper (post WWI Germany comes to mind), insulation, tinder for fires, in stacks as blocks for children to play with, and as toliet paper. Coinage can be melted down, etc.

:Non-fiat money can be redeemed for its equivalent - historically gold or silver - both of which have non-monetary value.

:Of course if you meant you can't get near the benefits from money's reputed value if you can't spend it, I'll agree. But be careful with your statements.

:~ender 2005-05-20 02:13:MST

On the other hand, there are <i>many</i> forms of property that need not be tradeable to be capable of being enjoyed; land is one such. The idea that you can only fully own land as property if you can trade it is US-centric, from the very things the USA put in on purpose like banning entails of land. Yet under other systems, entailed land - despite not being tradeable - was most definitely property. And of course, under the mandate Zionists placed restrictions on the sale of land they bought so that it would remain forever within the settler community and could not return to Palestinians once they were no longer so poor, a sort of ratchet. The thing is, certain restrictions can actually enhance the ability to enjoy and actually increase the ownership.

The long and the short of all this is, whoever edited this to assert that commoners' rights weren't property because they weren't tradeable was plain wrong. It's only property that is essentially liquid, inherently needing value in trade like money, that needs to be tradeable to be property. But commoners' rights had value in <i>use</i>. PML.

: ([[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 08:34, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)) I disagree with you. And I'm not from the US. So I've restored it. Your examples are poor: land is tradeable. As for your quote from wiki: read a bit further down.

:: We should probably specify that the status of commoners' rights as property is ambiguous, rather than arguing for one side or the other. For arguments' sake, [[fee tail]] land is not necessarily tradeable. - [[User:Nat Krause|Nat Kraus]][[User_Talk:Nat Krause|e]] 10:00, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

::: ([[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 15:27, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)) I partly agree. I accept there is ambiguity though. Perhaps rather than stating whether or not the rights were property we simply state that they could not be sold? As to fee tail land: I accept it could not be traded. But its not really clear that it was property in that case.

::::(Not that it matters in terms of this article, but I would say that fee tail land is the property of its owner, but that another party owns a restrictive easement on its use). - [[User:Nat Krause|Nat Kraus]][[User_Talk:Nat Krause|e]] 16:30, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

::: As I explain above (under the historical section) rights of common certainly could be sold, but most such rights were attached to land, so they could not be traded independantly of the land to which they were fixed, but since that could be sold (at least since [[Quia Emptores]]) they were something that could be exchanged for money value. Obviously one could also hire out their use. [[User:Francis Davey|Francis Davey]] 00:59, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:::: I originally put in the bundle of rights/property part, then someone US centric "corrected" it. I've now tried to separate out the issues, without resolving the part about being attached to the land (which I knew, but didn't emphasise). I believe that I covered how these rights could be leased (it was actually called "thistle rents"). That still leaves unresolved just how the rights could be sold, but I don't think we need to get into that detail in this article provided we only make it clear that <I>where these things applied</I> they really were property rights. At least, I hope nobody is so US-centric to dispute that other approaches exist, and US ones shouldn't be used when they weren't the relevant ones. It's like "Oh, you were married by the law of the country? but they don't have churches so you weren't <I>really</I> married, were you?"

::::I'd also like to see all these "a commons" things cleared up, not just for pedantry but because it confuses the fact that there were lots of distinct commons, each somewhat different, and not conferring any general access to the public. The whole [[Prisoner's dilemma]] thing comes from a difference between "each" and "all", and that makes this mechanism sensitive to what is singular and what is plural - it isn't a quibble, the way objecting to the Americanism "a woods" would be. PML.

:::::Would it worthwhile to move most of the discussion of the historical commons, and their inclosure, to the [[Commons]] article? That might help separate historical fact from metaphorical extrapolation. Just a usggestion. -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 05:58, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

== Papers that cite this one ==

There must be very many! However, I wonder if there are any we could refer to that describe the effect of selfish groups (rather than individuals) on the common good. Famous papers that refer to it would be good to mention too. Anyone have access to a [[citation index]]?

[[User:MrJones|Mr. Jones]] 18:20, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

:Google now has a scholarly journal search function, which includes citations. [[http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Tragedy+of+the+commons%22&btnG=Search]] Hardin wrote a follow-on essay, which is the first listed. That essay alone has been cited over 2200 times! -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 18:31, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

== Nations ==

*''For example, although most commons are regulated locally in the form of emissions standards, land use zoning and the like, the international community has not instituted regulations for global commons such as the ozone layer, oceans or polar icecaps, thus allowing primarily industrialized nations to overtax these resources without penalty.''

This text overwrote some existing text on experimental findings about behavior. It's not bad, but it was in the wrong place. Can anyone see a good way to work it in? -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 05:31, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

==Structure==

The article has a rather large opening section before the index. It might make more sense to have a single introductory paragraph (basically the first one already there), then shove the rest of the text (which actually describes the tragedy) into its own section in the body of the article. I'd do this without asking (as it's only a structural consideration), but I notice that the article's been cited by the press. Does this mean I should be extra careful or something? Cheers, --[[User:Plumbago|Plumbago]] 13:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

:That's fine. The fact that it's been cited is an honor, but it shouldn't stop us from improving the article further. Cheers, -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 21:19, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

==Hypothesis outline==

Just a couple of points :

* Hardin '''doesn't''' mention the English [[Commons]] in his original essay. He uses the example of a common [[grazing]] [[pasture]] as his Commons, but it's certainly not specified in relation to some particular historical example (so the section on history is a bit redundant; although it's possible that Hardin mistakenly brought in this historical example in a later article I've not read).

* Although it's not mentioned directly in the article right now, he goes on in his original essay to discuss examples including [[pollution]], [[human population]]s, [[National Park]]s, [[overfishing]] and even [[parking|car parking]]. People often get stuck on the idea of pastures and [[cow]]s in relation to the [[tragedy]].

* Another thing missing from this article is that right from the start of Hardin's essay he makes the point that there are no technical solutions to the tragedy. This is where the "[[mutual]] [[coercion]] mutually agreed upon" concept comes in. It also marks the essay out as rare in [[scientific literature]] since it deals explicitly with [[morality]], and not simply [[objective approach|objective]] [[science]].

Anyway, will try to address these points if no-one objects. --[[User:Plumbago|Plumbago]] 07:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

:I'm certainly in favor of keeping this this article grounded in adiscussion of Hardin's essay. It's better to add information than to remove it. Cheers, -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 10:11, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

== Communism and Polder Model ==

I'm surprised that there is no mention of [[communism]] in the article. Communism assumes the 'goodness of man' (or how should I put it?) and without that you get this. Another phenomenon that is interresting in this respect is the [[polder model]], which might also be worthy of a mention. See also the [[Talk:Polder Model|talk page]] there. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 08:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

:In the first instance, it might be interesting to know what the polder model actually is. The article on it doesn't actually say at the moment, it just alludes to it being a type of management without clarifying what that management is. It would be good to know how this example of a commons is managed (but by all means add the example of polders to the list of commons on this article's page).

:As regards communism (and other "solutions" to the tragedy), I think that the article requires some editing so that there's a specific section on escape from the tragedy. I've been meaning to do this for a while (see entry above), but will try to get my skates on. --[[User:Plumbago|Plumbago]] 09:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

::I'll add the Polder Model to the 'see also' section. I'm not sufficiently 'into this subject' do do much else. I just wanted to make a suggestion. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 09:08, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

== Stupidly biased articles ==

Could you people please refrain from inserting highly partisan language into your writing? It's annoying to read one IP/property article after another that is clearly written from an anti-property-rights, anti-capitalist perspective.

The tragedy of the commons is an economic theory. To say it's ''based'' on a misunderstanding of evidence is nonsensical. Perhaps it was motivated by a misunderstanding of evidence. If that is the case, you should write, "Some sociological evidences calls into question..."

I also want to point out that the Tragedy of Commons is a widely-accepted theory among property-law scholars. This article makes it sound like the theory is widely accepted to be false.

--[[User:Rmalloy|Rmalloy]] 13:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

:I don't know the topic but, for what it is worth, I agree. I think there is a biased tone in the article. The edits made 03:59, 8 June 2005 and 03:33, 8 June 2005 adds to the Introduction "misunderstood", "poor understanding" and "misunderstanding", on Hardin's part. The same edits also, in my opinion, disrupts the flow of the text between "any given situation" and "Experiments have indicated". I do not dare to fix anything myself.

:In External Links And References, there is a vague reference to a documentary "on cable TV". What day? What program title? What channel? What country? I think it can be removed. (David Andersson, 29 Sep 2005)

::I deleted the documentary non-link. However the matter of the difference between Hardin's view of how a commons worked and the the way that real commons worked is important to keep repeating. This article is on his theory, not the real commons, but it's important to show that his analogy is flawed, even though his conclusion is worthwhile. -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 19:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

:::Respectfully disagree entirely I'm afraid [[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]]. I know I've said it already (and not done anything about it), but Hardin was not interested in real pastures. So examples of how real pastures (with cows) may be managed, while interesting (and worth retaining in the article), do not invalidate his point. His real interest mostly lay with things that are often not even recognised as commons, and so aren't managed at all (i.e. they conform to his open access pasture). Things like the atmosphere and ocean, or resources like freshwater and fishstocks. As he states in his original essay, his primary preoccupation is with unrestricted human population growth, and one of his lifelong hobby horses was how the management of this, or even the discussion of it, was a taboo (and taboos effectively abolish management). Anyway, I'm wittering on and not improving the article. I will try to do so soon. Honest. (A failure to manage the commons of my own free time ...) --[[User:Plumbago|Plumbago]] 21:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

::::Er, that's part of the point. Hardin seemed to believe incorrectly that the commons were unmanaged, and built his metaphor on that basis. And no, he wasn't talking about things like the oceans, fishstocks, or the atmosphere. He was talking about reproductive rights to the human gene pool and the earth's carrying capacity of humans. I strongly suggest that you read his article (its short) before improving this one. Thanks, -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 21:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

:::Again, respectful disagreement. For one thing, some of the examples that he mentions in his paper (fishstocks, atmosphere, oceans, rivers; see pages 1245 and 1248) either remain as commons (e.g. the atmosphere; though even here there are weak agreements like Kyoto), are ineffectively managed commons (e.g. oceanic fishstocks) or only managed where it is easy to do so (e.g. rivers). There are a couple of paragraphs on the final page (1248) where he discusses abandonment of commons (in the unmanaged sense) for managed systems. The pastures-as-commons is introduced as an analogy (on page 1244 only), which I don't think is fleshed out with an explicit example in the original paper (although I'm aware that he returned to it in later work with a specific example of grazing lands in Africa). As regards population, I did say in my previous post above that this was his primary preoccupation in the essay (it's even the subtitle of the paper). It dominates the original paper in terms of word count, and though Hardin's interests are much broader than just this, it is a common (if you pardon the expression) theme of much of his work. With respect to the article at hand, I think much of it is fine, although I can see why there's some protest about its POV status. Don't worry though, I won't be setting fire to it or anything. :) Cheers, --[[User:Plumbago|Plumbago]] 08:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

::::OK, I trust you. Go for it. Cheers, -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 14:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

:::Hello again. Right, I've made changes to the bulk of the article. It still needs work on the "solutions" section, although I think this was less of a cause for the above consternation. I've tried to give a full description of the original essay, including reference to its scope and content. I've changed the tone of the "controversy" section to better reflect things as I understand them. Please feel free to disagree. I've tidied up the bit on the history of real "commons" so that it doesn't mistake Hardin's hypothetical example for the real deal. And I've marginally tidied the modern commons section, but I think the list can be rationalised further.

:::As regards the article's neutrality status, I've tried to contact [[User:Rmalloy|Rmalloy]] both via his/her talk page and by e-mail. However, I've not heard anything back (nor has [[User:Rmalloy|Rmalloy]] made any edits since September). Rather than wait indefinitely, I'll remove the neutrality warning at the head of the article tomorrow, unless anyone objects that is. From the above comments, I think the cause of the original debate has been resolved. Your mileage may vary.

:::I hope my changes have improved the article. Cheers, --[[User:Plumbago|Plumbago]] 12:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

::::Good work. Thanks for giving the article your careful attention. Cheers, -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 19:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

== Light pollution ==

I'm pulling this from the list of modern commons because it's not as clear a case as other examples. While light "pollutes" the sky and obscures the stars for everyone, the light sources that do so usually provide a public benefit as well (e.g. illuminating objects you'd rather not bump in to). The are exceptions, but on the whole lighting things up conveys benefit. A good contrast is with noise pollution. While there are examples of where this conveys benefit (e.g. police/fire/ambulance sirens), on the whole noise added to the environment is clearly pollution. --[[User:Plumbago|Plumbago]] 13:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)