I wrote about this same principle in the story on this blog, called Response to Clay Shirky: 2 Systems for Creating Value.

In short, information, knowledge, is like money, it only really gains value if it circulates, a democratizing principle. On the other hand, for those who want short term gain, hoarding seems to consolidate power, that is, if the money or information already has value. The reason this works through an elitist principle is that the hoarder or society protecting various "holy of holies," whether that be technical arcana, religious insight, kung fu, or a big vault at a big fucking bank, is that it seems to confer power to the gatekeeper position.

In a democratized or distributed system for creating value, the rising tide floats all boats. But introduce widespread hoarding into the equation, and elitists construct borders and gates and gatekeepers. Values diminish as people do without the thing being hoarded, and you have to distribute some of it or let more inside the gate for value to again accrue.

The professional longevity of Alan Greenspan I think in some ways depends on the fact that he has deeply internalized this principle. The utter stupidity of the Bush adm, which is rumored to be not going to reappoint Greenspan due to has non-party line comments on the tax cut (and because maybe Bush assumes the HW Bush recession was actually a Greenspan "attack" on his daddy), is revealed by just how deeply this administration slept through Economics 101.

Miasma

Poynter sees the point.

What is the trade-off when a newspaper (or other institutionalized journalistic entity) offers a blog, but requires people coming because of a major story to register to see it?

I'd suggest to news sites that require registration and find themselves in a similar situation that they turn off user registration temporarily -- or at least turn it off for stories about the big breaking story...

That's Steve Outing, a very bright journalist long involved with the Net, on Poynter Online. He points to Sheila Lennon's site, Projo.com, which moved its newspaper blog about the Station fire outside the registration barrier because the news need was greater than the, uh, whatever the need is (death wish?) that causes news entities to require people to register to see news. This is the news blog I described yesterday (scroll down to A community's journal).

[Tom Matrullo's Stuff]

12:38:15 AM    

Logical Fallacies and The Rush To War. Dave Koehler of PhillyBurbs.com has written an outstanding summary of the logical fallacies used by the Bush administration to try to convince the world at large of the necessity of invading Iraq in the absence of any sort of compelling evidence. If you think Bush is full of it, but couldn't put your finger on how, exactly, read the article. If you think Bush is making a good case for invading Iraq, read the article anyway. [kuro5hin.org

Let's review them, shall we?

One of the favorite methods of the current administration is a false dilemma. This is when only two choices are given when, in reality, there are more options. Right after 9/11 you heard, [base "]You are either with us or against us,[per thou] in the fight against terrorism. Actually, countries can be both against terrorism and not an ally of the U.S. More recently, many countries are showing that they are both against a pre-emptive war and against the current Iraqi regime.

[...]

Another arguing device is the argument from ignorance. This involves claiming that what hasn[base ']t been disproven must be true. We hear Iraq hasn[base ']t shown that they do not have WMD, therefore they do. The real burden of proof is on the party making the claim. The U.S. and/or U.N. must prove that Iraq has WMD. It is impossible for Iraq to prove that they don[base ']t.

An argument portraying a series of increasingly bad events is called a slippery slope. This is used effectively by gun-control opponents who suggest handgun registration will eventually lead to government confiscation of all guns. On Iraq, we hear how Saddam will develop WMDs and give them to terrorists who will then use them on America. While this is one possible chain of events, it hardly justifies a pre-emptive attack on a sovereign nation.

[...]

Criticizing a person or group instead of an issue is called an ad hominem attack. The current talk about France by many Americans is a perfect example. It is not only childish, it distracts from the real issues. France is not obligated to go along with every American idea because we saved them from Nazi Germany 60 years ago.

[...]

Another common device we are seeing is a fallacy of exclusion. Colin Powell and President Bush have both talked about aluminum tubes being used for uranium enrichment for use in nuclear weapons. They always fail to mention that according to U.N. nuclear inspectors the tubes were actually conventional rocket artillery casings. They also mention Iraq[base ']s use of chemical weapons against Iran in the 1980[base ']s. They again leave out that we supported Iraq at that time in their war against Iran, and basically ignored the use of WMDs at that time.

[...]

Arguing a claim is true based on someone being an expert on the subject is known as an appeal to authority. In our case, the experts are defectors from Iraq. Powell claimed defectors reported there were 18 mobile biological weapons labs cruising around Iraq. First, these defector[base ']s stories are suspect due to their obvious dislike of Iraq. I[base ']m sure they would be happy to tell the U.S. what they wanted to hear if it hastened the destruction of the Iraqi regime and they could return to their homeland. More to the point, chief weapons inspector Hans Blix said his men had examined some of the trucks and found them to be food-testing labs.

[...]

Why is the Bush Administration using these deceptive techniques to rush us into a war with Iraq?

Is there any solid evidence that Iraq still processes weapons of mass destruction and has ties with terrorist groups? A few audio tapes and fuzzy satellite photos are not proof. All we hear is the same anecdotal evidence repeated over and over again.

President Bush has said that if Saddam and his generals [base "]take innocent life, if they destroy infrastructure, they will be held accountable as war criminals.[per thou] Isn[base ']t the United States about to take innocent life and destroy infrastructure?

What I've found in all the listservs I've been on since 9/11 is that there are TWO things Americans need most in this world. I've hollered and yelled, "Oh my kingdom for just these two little things!"

They are:

1. For everyone to retake 8th grade civics class, with particular focus on the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

2. A university-level course in rhetoric and argumentation, Logical Fallacies 101, if you will.

If we just had these two things, fewer people would be DUPED by stupid and poorly constructed arguments. I swear, it is if the Enlightenment never happened, and all those poor postmodernists NEED the Enlightenment to rebel and rail against. Would you take such a precious thing away from them?!

Miasma
12:13:43 AM