Talk:Anti-rival good

Surely an anti-rival good is often NOT un-excludable, but rather un-excluded... Wikipedia is an excellent example, it could easily be excludable, both in terms of access and content provision, but its central tenet is the voluntary decision to make it open source, rather than an intrinsic element of the good (in this case, an encyclopedia)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.162.110 (talk) 04:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-rival goods are un-excludable by design. Using your own example: Wikipedia could indeed be excludable, but then it would not be anti-rival, e.g. gain from almost real-time volunteer input and quality control. Rivalrous and non-rivalrous encyclopedias do not enjoy these intrinsic benefits - both quality and relevance of publication, and social benefits - that define an anti-rival publication. 2001:2003:F725:BE00:2C93:4C26:5B31:D9CE (talk) 08:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]