<story><title>Jimmy Wales on Systems and Incentives</title><url>https://medium.com/conversations-with-tyler/jimmy-wales-tyler-cowen-wikipedia-610b6e931d20</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>savanaly</author><text>I was interested by the following part:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt;COWEN: Now, as you know, Wikipedia is open. It’s free. It doesn’t have ads. It’s a dream of the early tech utopians. Why is it the only surviving dream of that kind that has persisted?&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt;WALES: Well, it’s an interesting thing, and I’m not sure it’s the only, but it’s certainly the most famous and the largest.&lt;p&gt;Can HN think of any other examples? Funny enough I immediately thought of HN itself, although it does have some ads and I&amp;#x27;m not sure it qualifies as big enough for what Cowen had in mind.</text></comment>
<story><title>Jimmy Wales on Systems and Incentives</title><url>https://medium.com/conversations-with-tyler/jimmy-wales-tyler-cowen-wikipedia-610b6e931d20</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>tunesmith</author><text>I think there could be potential with allowing the community to moderate more of facebook&amp;#x2F;twitter. This is just based off of my theory that our perspective of who Others are is completely warped. We already know that the most extreme are the ones more likely to share extreme opinions, and that only some % of lurkers say things publicly, but even with that I think we&amp;#x27;re really ill-equipped to understand just how far it goes. If there&amp;#x27;s a huge silent population of kind reasonable people, people that don&amp;#x27;t spout off but are allowed to have some control of how content is authored and presented, maybe it could make a big difference.</text></comment>