Talk:Tragedy of the commons: Difference between revisions
John Quiggin (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
== NPOV == |
== NPOV == |
||
This article is an uncritical presentation of a viewpoint regarded by most economists as having been refuted decades ago. The criticism section is buried so far down that no one will see it, and the Ostrom's who demolished Hardin, are quoted as if they endorse him. I've started trying to get some kind of balance [[User:John Quiggin|JQ]] ([[User talk:John Quiggin|talk]]) 18:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC) |
This article is an uncritical presentation of a viewpoint regarded by most economists as having been refuted decades ago. The criticism section is buried so far down that no one will see it, and the Ostrom's who demolished Hardin, are quoted as if they endorse him. I've started trying to get some kind of balance [[User:John Quiggin|JQ]] ([[User talk:John Quiggin|talk]]) 18:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC) |
||
== Not sure how to edit but the 5th paragraph points to the wrong Paul Ehrlich. Should be == |
|||
Not sure how to edit, but the main info points to the wrong Paul erlich. Should be https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._Ehrlich [[Special:Contributions/2603:8080:7400:E6C:A532:D2D5:6442:B8B8|2603:8080:7400:E6C:A532:D2D5:6442:B8B8]] ([[User talk:2603:8080:7400:E6C:A532:D2D5:6442:B8B8|talk]]) 20:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:15, 21 May 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tragedy of the commons article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
This level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
Lead is a tragedy in itself
It seems to me that the lead is not a summary of the content, as required by WP:LEAD, but almost an article itself. What made me invite comment was this text:
While it may appear economically rational to an individual to over-consume in this context as doing so bears no immediate personal cost, such common land became barren and even permanently ruined where sufficient numbers of herders engaged in such activity.[1] Although provided as a hypothetical example, according to critical scholars the commons’ destruction came about from landholders of the commons who claimed and enclosed these lands, preventing common use.[2]
which, citing NPOV, Truants changed today to read
While it may appear economically rational to an individual to over-consume in this context as doing so bears no immediate personal cost, such common land became barren and even permanently ruined where sufficient numbers of herders engaged in such activity.[1] Provided as a hypothetical example, some have claimed that real-world common pastureland did not befall this fate.[3]
But here's the problem: "critical scholar" is Hardin, who in the next paragraph we say meant "the tragedy of the unmanaged commons", so the specific text I'm questioning is a straw man. Or just waffle.
So what I'm really saying is that the lead needs to be heavily edits to about half its current size. Anyone? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:13, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
- I agree. The lede should be short; it is not the place for subsidiary detail, which can well be dealt with in thr body of the article. I propose:
The tragedy of the commons is a metaphoric label for a concept that is widely discussed in economics, ecology and other sciences. According to the concept, if a plurality of independent individuals should enjoy unfettered access to a finite, valuable resource e.g. a pasture, they will tend to over-use it, and may end up by destroying its value altogether. To exercise voluntary restraint is not a rational choice for any one individual - if he does, the others will merely supplant him - yet the predictable result is a tragedy for all.
The metaphor is the title of a 1968 essay by ecologist Garrett Hardin. As another example he cited a watercourse which all are free to pollute. But the principal concern of his essay was overpopulation of the planet. To prevent the inevitable tragedy (he argued) it was necessary to reject the principle (supposedly enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) according to which every family has a right to choose the number of its offspring, and to replace it by "mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon".
Ttocserp 22:47, 4 June 2023 (UTC)The concept itself did not originate with Hardin, but extends back to classical antiquity, being discussed by Aristotle. Some scholars have argued that over-exploitation of the common resource is by no means inevitable, since the individuals concerned may be able to achieve mutual restraint by consensus. Others have contended that the metaphor is inapposite because its exemplar - unfettered access to common land - did not exist historically, the right to exploit common land being controlled by law.
References
- ^ a b Lloyd, William Forster (1833). JSTOR 1972412. OL 23458465M – via Wikisource. . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- ^ Biss, Eula (June 8, 2022). "The Theft of the Commons". The New Yorker.
- ^ Biss, Eula (June 8, 2022). "The Theft of the Commons". The New Yorker.
Label, and the thing it denotes.
While the edit by user Novern Linguae means to get to the heart of the matter at once, which is usually desirable, in this case it really is quite important not to telescope two quite different entities. The Tragedy of the Commons is not, and never was, a concept: it is just one modern label (arguably, even a glib label) for a concept (or, more accurately) a range of concepts, imperfectly defined, that have been debated since Aristotle. The lead section got into a mess in the past -- see above, Lead is a tragedy in itself -- for failure to stress this philosophical distinction. Ttocserp 11:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think before I made my edit, the Google Knowledge Panel was saying
The tragedy of the commons is a metaphoric label for a concept that is widely discussed in economics, ecology and other sciences
, without saying what the concept is. That's one of my motivations for the change. I'm not particularly invested in that edit though. Up to y'all. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
NPOV
This article is an uncritical presentation of a viewpoint regarded by most economists as having been refuted decades ago. The criticism section is buried so far down that no one will see it, and the Ostrom's who demolished Hardin, are quoted as if they endorse him. I've started trying to get some kind of balance JQ (talk) 18:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Not sure how to edit but the 5th paragraph points to the wrong Paul Ehrlich. Should be
Not sure how to edit, but the main info points to the wrong Paul erlich. Should be https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._Ehrlich 2603:8080:7400:E6C:A532:D2D5:6442:B8B8 (talk) 20:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- B-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in Physical sciences
- B-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in Physical sciences
- B-Class vital articles in Physical sciences
- B-Class game theory articles
- High-importance game theory articles
- B-Class Economics articles
- Mid-importance Economics articles
- WikiProject Economics articles
- B-Class politics articles
- Mid-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- B-Class Philosophy articles
- Mid-importance Philosophy articles
- B-Class ethics articles
- Mid-importance ethics articles
- Ethics task force articles
- B-Class Fishing articles
- Mid-importance Fishing articles
- WikiProject Fishing articles
- B-Class Environment articles
- High-importance Environment articles
- Wikipedia pages referenced by the press