Talk:Sharing

Economics Mid‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computing Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Psychology Mid‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anthropology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Culture High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2022 and 13 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Terence9915 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Camellre.

About sharing

Sharing figures prominently in gift economies, but also can play a significant role in market economies, for example in car sharing.

The issue of handling shared resources figures prominently in computer science: for example time-sharing is an approach to interactive computing in which a single computer is used to provide apparently simultaneous interactive general-purpose computing to multiple users by sharing processor time.

Sharing is a key feature in the developing field of free software and open source software, with implications for economic. This is leading to a need to review licensing, patents and copyright, and to controversy in these areas, as well as new approaches like Creative Commons and the GPL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.178.27.227 (talk) 22:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For example, you can share your butt if you let someone else use it and you use it together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:342:200:4200:6C3D:229F:20F3:5F6 (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sharing and the Effects on Market Demand

Sharing disjoints the connection between usage and ownership of a product. Products are often sold because a buyer intends to use the product or the buyer intends to sell it to someone who will use it, thus sharing a product may reduce the product's demand by reducing the number of people who intend to acquire it in order to use it. Though sharing is touted as an economical and environmental aid to the public(carpooling, shared apartments, etc.), some businesses perceive it as a threat because of its assumed effect on their profitability. This has resulted in protection laws(like copyright provisions such as denying owners the right to perform or display the work publicly) to curb sharing.

Kiopaen (talk) 18:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To share can actually build an empire. We have a tool box and person A owns it. Now if person A shares the hammer of the tool box to person B, for instance. Then person A can cut some wood with a circular from the tool box while at the same time person B can hammer together previously cut wood to shorten the production time. Thus a house can be constructed in about half the time if person A shares all his tools with person B. Thus a more compatible environment to create a structure quicker. Then if person C is allowed to use the tape measure from tool box he can measure out the size and length of the wood to be cut. While person A cuts and person B hammers. So in essence the house can then be constructed in one third the time. And so forth and so on.

On the other hand it can be detrimental to share something like a spoon. Many intrivenious drug users share spoons to mix-up their concoction. Thus giving one another their germs which breed on the spoon's surface. They all get their own jollies using the one spoon, but they can also spread one another's diseases around or even kill each other by infecting one another with the contaminated germ breeding spoon.

So put bluntly sharing is both very good but also very bad. So in other words the habit of constant sharing could kill us all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.128.43 (talk) 10:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC) For example, you can share your butt by letting someone use it and you use it. you can also take turns on using the butt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:342:200:4200:6C3D:229F:20F3:5F6 (talk) 21:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is my link to Shareable.net being deleted from this entry?

Why is my link to Shareable.net being deleted from this entry? Shareable.net is a nonprofit, nonpartisan online magazine about sharing. We write about examples of how people share and offer how-to tips to our readers. We are not a commercial mag. We do not sell advertising. We are supported by donations just like Wikipedia. 98.248.34.90 (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ELNO points 4 and 11, and also the guideline on conflict of interest. - MrOllie (talk) 12:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MrOllie. I understand the conflict of interest. We'll wait for someone else outside of our staff to post the link. However, points 4 and 11 do not apply. We're a nonprofit project of Tides Center. Our mission is to help the public share. This is not a personal website or blog. We've hired a professional editor, Jeremy Adam Smith. And have a staff of professional freelance writers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.34.90 (talk) 20:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heading

Reducing definition. Mormegil 87.18.29.160 (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete definition in lede

Currently the lede has this definition for sharing: "Sharing is the joint use of a resource or space". However, that definition is incomplete: it misses out on the aspect of sharing that's about sharing personal experiences, emotions, memories, knowledge, information and cultural outputs (of ones own or of other people such as images, videos or music on the Internet etc.).

So to start this I'd think the definition would be more complete like this: "Sharing is the joint use of a resource or space or the intentional passing on of information, personal experiences or already perceived cultural outputs."

Maybe someone else has a better suggestion or can improve it?

--Fixuture (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Complete Rewrite?

In my opinion, this article could use a complete re-write. What should be in this article? Power~enwiki (talk) 00:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sharing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To delete or not

I see User:Lagringa proposed this article for deletion. I'm no longer active day-to-day in en-wiki, but would much rather see this cleanly scoped and improved than deleted. It seems to me that sharing, like gift,. is a pretty important concept in understanding human behavior, and merits an encyclopedia article. I just skimmed the article, and I'm concerning myself more with where I think it should go than where it is right now.

The notion of sharing covers a range of associated phenomena, so (much as Wittgenstein wrote about the concept of a game in the opening pages of the Philosophical Investigations), it can't be simply defined and circumscribed but is still an important concept. We have an article on ownership; in many ways, sharing is complementary to that. Possibly the two could be combined into one article with this as a redirect; I would not object strenuously to that, but I'd rather see those as two separate cross-linked articles.

There seem to me to be at least two different types of "sharing" that this article should address, and some things in between:

the sort of sharing where only one person or connected group can use a resource at a time (e.g. different parties using the same physical space at different times, or serially borrowing a library book).
the sort of sharing that (at least largely) lacks that constraint (e.g. multiple client systems connecting to a single online encyclopedia; multiple people listening to the same song on the radio, where the radio station pays a royalty that is largely independent of the number of listeners at a given time; shared access to the intellectual property rights inherent in a patent, if the owner free-licenses those rights).
in between (common space in cohousing; Spain, France, and the Andorran people in a complicated sharing of sovereignty over Andorra).

Again: this seems to me to be an important enough concept in both human behavior and economics to merit its own article, for almost exactly the same reasons we have articles on gift and ownership.

@Lagringa: I'd be very interested in your response, especially if you think I'm wrong. Please ping me if you respond, as I said I do not currently watch en-wiki day-to-day. Jmabel | Talk 22:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: Thanks for the comment. Let me break down the content of the article.

Introductory paragraph. This is essentially a dictionary definition.
Concepts in biology. If "sharing" is a notable concept in neuroscience or biology, then an article on that topic would be warranted, but it really sounds like this is just general musings on the topic. There is one reference at the end, but it's a dead link. I see in the edit history that it previously was used to support an entirely different assertion, so I skeptical that it's possible that it would render this topic notable.
Computer and Internet Culture. The content is covered in countless other articles. E.g., Free-culture movement, Free content, Remix culture, Image sharing, File sharing, Peer-to-peer file sharing, Free software, Open-source software
In computer science. Again, this content is covered in articles on that subject. E.g., Shared resource, Time-sharing, Call by sharing, File locking.
In households. This is a brief mention of some cultural practices in Hungary, without any sources. I reached out to the editor who inserted this information and suggested that it might be appropriate in Gift economy (which has an anthropological slant). I'm afraid it might be original research though.
In a market. This is just some mostly unattributed references to concepts in Competition law, which are covered in Dividing territories and Collusion.

I fail to see any unifying theme here, other than the fact that they fall under umbrella of the meaning of the word "sharing" in English. You offer an attempt at connecting the ideas, which to be honest, I don't really follow. In any case, are those thoughts your own or something that could be turned into the basis for an appropriate article? I genuinely cannot imagine any way these disparate ideas could be unified in a way that amounts to a notable article, with appropriate sources.

With respect to the article on Gifts, I think it's problematic for similar reasons, but there is at least some content there that might be notable and isn't obviously duplicative of other articles, at least not at first glance. I don't think it's a great example of a meritorious article. Ownership deals with property law and clearly merits an article. To the extent that sharing is relevant to ownership, it is covered there, which underlines why a separate article on "sharing" makes no sense.

Hope that was helpful. Lagringa (talk) 00:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lagringa: As I indicated above: I wouldn't mind this being a redirect to "ownership," as long as a proper merge is done and someone makes sure anything already here that is of value gets merged either there or somewhere else more appropriate for that particular content. But I think a simple deletion would be wrong.

Also, I don't think that the concept of sharing in its various senses is by any means unique to English; please note that the article has five interwiki links. In the Spanish-language article es:compartir, at a quick read the section "La compartición en el actual debate filosófico" appears to be both substantive and extensive. Do we have equivalent content anywhere in en-wiki? If not, should we perhaps translate that content rather than delete the content we have? - Jmabel | Talk 01:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: Thanks for sharing the Spanish article. It looks like it is based on the Italian version. They are both closely related to the English article, except that they have additional sections on philosophy. That section derives from this article in Italian. The article about the concept of sharing in philosophy narrowly survived a deletion nomination and has been flagged as having problems. Personally, I agree with the arguments in favor of deletion, because I think it reads more of an opinion piece than a encyclopedia article. If someone wants to create an article on that topic in English, we can debate the merits of that article then. I think that page would be a different enough topic that it would warrant a new page.

I realized that there are pages for Share and Shared, which are both disambiguation pages. I feel like all three of these pages should be merged into one page. I'm not entirely clear on the policies regarding these kinds of situations, but I'm looking into it. Maybe what I actually want to propose is a merge, but it would result in the deletion of the entire content of this article.

I do not agree that a redirect to ownership would make sense, because that article is specific to the legal context.

Lagringa (talk) 23:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lagringa: Since it looks like you and I aren't reaching an easy consensus, do you mind if I turn your PROD into a proper Wikipedia:Articles for deletion discussion, and link our discussion here? Or you are welcome to be the one who takes that action, as long as you are willing to take responsibility to give a relatively neutral statement of our disagreement. (I don't really see any reasonable way to go besides AFD, but I'm open to other ways to proceed.) - Jmabel | Talk 02:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I deprodded, but didn't realize my explanation in a previous edit managed to not be recorded in the article history. Thanks for reaching out, and I apologize for sowing confusion. Regarding the prod, (1) this article discusses more than just the etymology of the word sharing, so is beyond a bare dictionary entry, (2) this is the main article for Category:Sharing and provides context and background for that concept, and (3) I think this article could work as a WP:DABCONCEPT broad-concept article that briefly discusses and contrasts the common concept of sharing across articles about types of sharing. For these reasons, I thought deletion was controversial and would need a discussion before deleting the article. I agree that the article has some problems, but when deciding whether to delete, its important to look at the article's potential rather than current state. Could there be an article written on the general concept of sharing? I think that as a DABCONCEPT, a list-class article with a bit of context, there is potential there. It looks like you disagree, so it may be best to take it to AfD if consensus cannot be reached here. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 09:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why not delete plant sharing Sharing

It appears that you are the editor responsible for the section Hungarian cultural practices in Sharing. I have tagged that section as lacking in sources. I have also nominated the article as a whole for deletion. If you can find sources for the content you shared, I believe it may be appropriate in a subsection in Gift economy. Thank you for your contribution. Lagringa (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

""This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2021) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) Plant sharing Screenshot of an open source file sharing software Share as a resource sharing—called kaláka in Hungarian—is an old tradition in Hungary. Young couples had to build their house after marriage. Marriage itself was called házasodás in Hungarian (en: becoming the owner of a house). When doing so the whole community, relatives and acquaintances helped the young couple with work, knowledge and even money. At pigsticking, all members of the community got their shares too. Superfluous plants were freely distributed for neighbours in the season. In most cultures, members of the same household tend to pool their resources.""

Try to acquire sources. BUT: the meaning of sharing and the meaning of giving a gift is NOT the same. "Kaláka" consequently did NOT mean any kind of gifts. "Kaláka" meant kind of sharing. It was not meant to be a gift. --Elekes Andor (talk) 10:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)--Elekes Andor (talk) 10:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]