3 ms·
Tragedy of the Commons. We all could use easily accessible, accurate and unbiased medical information, but most people can't or won't pay a website to procure a
by unethical_ban 4y ago
Tragedy of the Commons. We all could use easily accessible, accurate and unbiased medical information, but most people can't or won't pay a website to procure and publish such content, especially when they don't really know if they can trust the site! It's rather circular.
If only there were some association of all people, some kind of organization that included all members of the public, which could collect a nominal fee for common goods and services and then provide them freely after the fact. Some sort of union that governs what goods and services are provided...
- dartharva 4y agoThe existence and success of Wikipedia (and other similar sites) easily counters this notion of needing consumer propensity to pay for a knowledge repository. Sure, reliability and accuracy of the information may be put into question, but that would have been a concern either way even if it were a paid service.
- unethical_ban 4y agoPeople are not encouraged to make personal health decisions by Wikipedia.
- SV_BubbleTime 4y agoWe all know the people that collect the nominal fee have the best interest in delivering a quality product - a serious responsibility to do so even - and not solely making their section of the entity larger and more powerful year over year. What is a bureaucrat if not a highly skilled creator who completes their mission ahead of time and under-budget?
- unethical_ban 4y agoThis, but unironically. A number of countries (and a number of federal and state orgs in the US) have competent sources of record for the public good. Why we don't have it for medicine is beyond me.
- quickthrower2 4y agoGovernments would need to run big very expensive ad campaigns to change peoples behaviour from “googling” to entering a government website url. The browsers now make searching so much easier than typing an URL.