At 10:03 AM 12/20/2009, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 12/20/2009 12:22 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 10:56 PM 12/19/2009, you wrote:
A Ponzi scheme is specifically a scheme for allowing *investors* to
make money even though the company has no source of income. It's the
lure of assured high return on the money which pulls in the investors.
In particular, investors who pull out before a Ponzi scheme collapses
make a profit. The (very plausible) scheme you describe doesn't earn
anything at all for investors which pull out; they just break even.
The *only* winners are salaried employees.
That's just "business as usual" in the startup world -- save that in
an honest startup, when things start to go sour, the officers often
stop drawing salaries, in an effort to bolster cash flow...
I wrote that it's a Ponzi scheme as an analogy, not as a literal Ponzi
scheme. I've also called Wikipedia a Ponzi or pyramid scheme.
In conversation with other parties who are not intimately familiar
with your particular use of language, it's good to stick to standard
definitions.
Using "Ponzi scheme" to describe Wikipedia is a solecism, to put it politely.
Language is used for communication, and that's a process which
involves more than one party. If the sender of the message takes
total responsibility, it can take a long time. If it's a cooperative
effort, it can be much more efficient. Please consider that I have
extensive experience with Wikipedia. As Wikipedian's go, it's no
great shakes, about 14,000 edits, as I recall. I mean something by
calling Wikipedia a Ponzi scheme. What could that possibly be?
Words have meaning only to the extent that the members of the
culture in which they're used agree to that meaning.
Words have meaning as used and as heard. I'm communicating
interculturally, in any sense. Hey, what's your culture? Care to
specify it? But does it matter. Was I writing for you? I was
responding, but I use language for my reader, not necessarily for my subject.
If you insist on fixed meanings, you deny poetry and a host of other
efficient communications, which involve the interplay of meanings.
The way you're using these words is not correct according to that
agreed meaning.
The way you are thinking is not correct according to a deeper
understanding of language. You can take "Ponzi" or leave it. Seems
you would prefer to leave it. I'm fine with that.
This leads directly to confusion and misunderstanding, and
eventually to the suspicion that you are using "Ponzi scheme" as a
synonym for "bad".
Well, you may suspect that, but it's not true. I stated it was an
analogy. That means that it need only match the application in one
sense, it could be "incorrect" in many others. Were I writing an
academic article, I'd be very careful. I'm not.
Both "Ponzi scheme" and "pyramid scheme" have standard definitions,
and they should be used in accordance with those definitions in
public discussions, unless you are intentionally trying to cloud the issues.
Neither Steorn nor Wikipedia is either a Ponzi or pyramid scheme.
According to the authority. Pyramid scheme is definitely applicable
to Wikipedia. How, I'll leave as an exercise for anyone who
understands Wikipedia, how it works, and how it is breaking down.
Note, "applicable" means that there is an analogy, that the
comparison is useful. Not that Wikipedia is collecting money, the
"scheme" isn't much about money, it's about investments of editor
labor and what happens to them.
...
There are a lot of details, if you read between the lines. For example,
very low-friction bearings are crucial to the technology; they are
offering them and they make this statement about them. Now, what does
that imply? It implies that if there is any excess energy here
There isn't.
Why do I feel like I'm swimming in molasses?
