7 comments

• 

  Rob Hyndman

  2 years ago

  For the life of me, I don't get why this isse - whether or not it's appropriate to pay contributors - has anything other than historical interest, or as a footnote to the evolution of social media.
  
  All that is happening is that people are being paid for their work. The type of work may be new, but it's work nonetheless. And it strikes me that advocates of the view that it shouldn't be compensated are either (A) waxing nostalgically and lyrically about a time when the 'sphere was pure as the driven snow, and motivated only by benevolence and the kindness of pixies (so long as it means only other people should work for free), or (B) hoping to keep using the labour of others for free, at least until after the liquidity event.
  
  It's work. Others profit from it. Case closed, isn't it?
  reply
• 

  Mathew Ingram

  2 years ago

  I'm not so sure, Rob -- that's why I think it's so interesting an issue. Is submitting links to Digg or Reddit or Netscape really work that requires compensation? I'm not convinced that it is -- or if it is, those doing it might want to let their real employers know, since many are doing it while allegedly doing their real "job." Some top Diggers have said they aren't interested in being paid, regardless of whether it's work or not. Maybe Jason's comparison to volunteer vs. professional firefighters is an apt one -- some do it for the pay, and others do it for other reasons.
  reply
• 

  Rob Hyndman

  2 years ago

  Respectfully disagree, The issue isn't whether it *requires* compensation - the issue is whether it's OK to do it. Wikipedia will never do it. That's OK, many people won't write for Wikipedia because of it, but many still will, enough in fact to make the wiki worthwhile.
  
  But Jason has been slagged for just doing it. Arrington called it evidence of desperation, and the mob lined, generally calling it untrue to the soul of web 2.0 - pixies and such like.
  
  But that's nonsense, pure and simple. Unless a community is sustainable without it (the wikis, eg), competition in the space will eventually favour those who can monetize their community to the point where those make the most valuable contributions are compensated for it. That's the way the rest of the world works - no reason why this should be any different.
  reply
• 

  Mathew Ingram

  2 years ago

  I agree that Jason has been slagged for doing it -- but not by me. And the issue as I see it isn't whether compensation is okay to do, but whether it somehow changes the nature of what is produced.
  
  No disrespect intended, but I think dismissing any such discussion as having to do with pixies avoids the question rather than addressing it. Do people who create or contribute out of some inner desire produce something different than those who are driven by money? I'm not just talking about Digg or Netscape now but all kinds of user-generated content. I think they do.
  
  Wikipedia might be "better" in some sense if its top contributors were paid, but it wouldn't be the same. That's the point I'm really trying to get at, not whether Jason is right or wrong to be trying to pay people.
  reply
• 

  Rob Hyndman

  2 years ago

  Well, I still disagree. Does it change the nature of what is produced? Well, is your work different because you're paid? Is mine? Is an Olympic ahtlete's? Is anyone's?
  
  Same old, same old. It's work. Some people do it for money, some don't. It's an old story.
  
  IMO.
  reply
• 

  johnkoetsier

  2 years ago

  Fan letter? Fan letter! Take a look at the previous post:
  http://www.sparkplug9.com/bizhack/index.php/200...
  
  The jury is still out on whether Calacanis' moves will ultimately succeed. But I do give him credit for both trying different things and - at least apparently - turning Netscape around.
  
  I still think there's troubles on the horizon, but that's for coming posts ...
  reply
• 

  Mathew Ingram

  2 years ago

  Thanks for the comment, John. Okay, maybe "fan letter" was overstating it a bit :-)
  
  Mathew
  reply