3 ms·

The trouble with this is that everyone with the answer has an incentive to answer for free on an open site. The incentive is that others will do the same if the

by mkr-hn 13y ago

The trouble with this is that everyone with the answer has an incentive to answer for free on an open site. The incentive is that others will do the same if they feel like they got value for their time. How does a paid site compete with something like Stack Exchange? SE has most of the answers. People appreciate finding the answer they needed. Many of them will turn around and pay it forward by answering questions or improving other answers. It's the same reason Wikipedia killed paid encyclopedias.

jawns 13y ago
Actually, anyone who actually wants to get compensated for their expertise or research has an incentive to answer on a paid site, rather than a free site. I think we're now starting to realize the repercussions of this emphasis on free, free, free content online. Look at newspapers. Nobody wants to pay for news anymore, and consequently, the journalism industry is in shambles. And that's a real shame, because in decades past, a robust metro newspaper used to be one of the best checks and balances against government corruption and slimey business practices. The model you propose -- freely sharing information so that everyone benefits -- has its merits, but it's no way to make a living, and consequently the pool of contributors gets whittled down to those who can afford to contribute without any expectation of compensation. But what if the person who has the expertise to answer a tough question isn't in that pool?
- CodeCube 13y ago
  If the person that has the expertise doesn't want to answer the question for free ... then the free market will deem access to that knowledge more valuable, and his consulting fees will increase. Everything is an ebb and flow. When the "value" of some knowledge goes down due to what some might call oversupply, the value of other knowledge will go up because it is not shared freely; those who need that knowledge or service will then be willing to pay a premium for it since they could not find it elsewhere. You're right that some things that were great ways to make a living are starting to become less-so. The answer is to simply to not try to make a living at that thing that is undervalued by the market. If enough providers of that service leave the supply pool, then the value will increase and compel the supply to return. The market doesn't have an obligation to support journalists ... if no one wants to pay them because they can get information on twitter, reddit, and facebook ... well, that's how it is :)

by mkr-hn 13y ago

jawns 13y ago

Actually, anyone who actually wants to get compensated for their expertise or research has an incentive to answer on a paid site, rather than a free site. I think we're now starting to realize the repercussions of this emphasis on free, free, free content online. Look at newspapers. Nobody wants to pay for news anymore, and consequently, the journalism industry is in shambles. And that's a real shame, because in decades past, a robust metro newspaper used to be one of the best checks and balances against government corruption and slimey business practices. The model you propose -- freely sharing information so that everyone benefits -- has its merits, but it's no way to make a living, and consequently the pool of contributors gets whittled down to those who can afford to contribute without any expectation of compensation. But what if the person who has the expertise to answer a tough question isn't in that pool?

CodeCube 13y ago
If the person that has the expertise doesn't want to answer the question for free ... then the free market will deem access to that knowledge more valuable, and his consulting fees will increase. Everything is an ebb and flow. When the "value" of some knowledge goes down due to what some might call oversupply, the value of other knowledge will go up because it is not shared freely; those who need that knowledge or service will then be willing to pay a premium for it since they could not find it elsewhere. You're right that some things that were great ways to make a living are starting to become less-so. The answer is to simply to not try to make a living at that thing that is undervalued by the market. If enough providers of that service leave the supply pool, then the value will increase and compel the supply to return. The market doesn't have an obligation to support journalists ... if no one wants to pay them because they can get information on twitter, reddit, and facebook ... well, that's how it is :)