Talk:Concentrated benefits and diffuse costs

This article was nominated for deletion on 15 December 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was redirect to Tragedy of the commons.

What do the RS say?

The reliable sources do not support the redirect to tragedy of the commons. The only reason that this entry redirects to TOC is because two Value Destroying Editors (VDEs), Rubin and Rich, have absolutely no interest in reading RS. For proof of this fact please read this discussion on the TOC talk page. --Xerographica (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think rent-seeking would be a more appropriate redirect. ToC is sort of related but one has to make a couple intermediate steps in the argument to link the two.Volunteer Marek 06:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct. But it's also discussed in public choice under the first section on special interests. Here's the background story... User_talk:Bwilkins#Concentrated_benefits_and_diffuse_costs --Xerographica (talk) 06:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agree with N2E in that discussion. There's something here but it needs to be more precise, have reliable secondary sources, and not be just a quote farm.Volunteer Marek 06:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quote farms in no way shape or form hinder the development of article. They add value until an editor has the time/interest/knowledge to develop the article. In other words, they are better than nothing. Here's where I moved the quotes to... User:Xerographica/Concentrated_benefits_and_diffuse_costs. I'd invite you to develop it there but I have the feeling you'd simply delete all the quotes and wait for somebody else to develop it. --Xerographica (talk) 06:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quote farms in no way help the development of articles. Aside from usually being copyright violations, without some credible (not necessarily reliable) indication of a connection between the quote and the topic, they serve no purpose. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you think quotes are copyright violations then go head over to the Wikiquote project to inform them that they are violating copyright. If you do not see a connection between the quote and the topic...either the connection does not exist...or maybe the connection does exist but you're just not seeing it. Which one do you think it is? Well...given that it was your idea that this topic be redirected to TOC...I'm pretty sure I know which one it is. Have you ever considered reading what the reliable sources have to say about the topic? --Xerographica (talk) 07:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm sure that some of your quotes are copyright violations. They are much too long to merely support the point you are trying to make, even when they do support the point. As for the "connection", I don't recall anyone agreeing with you that there is a connection. If you claim that a reliable source supports the connection, then please provide that source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do I need a reliable source to support the statement that building a bridge has an opportunity cost? --Xerographica (talk) 08:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a significant number of editors who are disagreeing with, all over the same thing (excessive block quotes, original research etc), not just here but at other articles as well, all of whom came to this conclusion independently. This should tell you something. You're now engaging in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. At this point further discussion becomes a waste of time.Volunteer Marek 14:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And how many of those editors use reliable sources as the basis of their disagreements? --Xerographica (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to "The Logic of Collective Action"

Ugh. I just ran into this discussion when I happened to try looking for an article on concentration of benefits versus diffuse costs and noticed that the term current redirects to something different, then ran into all the flaming on the talk page. The whole thread seems to be mostly insults than people sitting down and talking about why the definition differs.

"Concentration of benefit, diffusion of cost" shows up when a small number of individuals benefit significantly enough from something to drive them to promote it, and a larger number of individuals are hurt by the thing, but not enough for them to oppose that thing. This is the effect described on the The Logic of Collective Action page, which currently links to this page.

"Tragedy of the commons" shows up when a non-excludable good exists. Then, a population consumes the good to the point that the population at a whole is worse-off. This happens because each individual abstaining from consumption only deprives himself of the good. He doesn't prevent the whole population from over-consuming the good, so he has no incentive to avoid consuming the good.

What the two have in common:

Both of the two involve the bulk of people in a population winding up worse-off.

What differs:

With tragedy of the commons, as that article opens with, over-consumption of a resource is at issue. "Concentration of benefit, diffusion of cost" need not involve over-consumption of a resource.

With "concentration of benefit, diffusion of cost", the driving factor is that a small group receives a large benefit from a particular situation such that they each have a strong-enough interest in attempting to bring it about, even if there is some cost, some effort to themselves. The larger group, however, suffers a fixed cost to each individual that is lower than the cost of each individual attempting to avoid the situation. The driving factor is the benefit to a small group being on one side of the cost of each member trying to bring about that situation, and the cost to the large group on the other. With tragedy of the commons, the driving factor is that the good being consumed is non-excludable.

With tragedy of the commons, the whole need wind up worse-off as a result of the consumption. This is not the case for "concentration of benefit, diffusion of cost", where the whole might wind up overall worse-off, the same, or better-off...it's just that a few individuals will benefit much more than some others are hurt.

I guess it would be possible to add a page for the term (which I guess would be the most-agreeable fix for everyone), but the "concentration of benefit, diffusion of cost" term seems to be far less-frequently used than "tragedy of the commons" is, based on Google searches. It doesn't seem to really warrant an entire page; it could be summed up pretty briefly.

Removing the term would also be possible. The term doesn't seem to see massive use, though it clearly does have real-world use.

I think that the best fix is probably to retain the redirect, but aim it at Public_choice#Special_interests, which is the closest thing to a summary of the concept that I currently see on Wikipedia. It's not perfect, since special interests are only a particular instance of "concentration of benefit, diffusion of cost" -- the phenomenon could occur in areas that have nothing to do with lobbying or politics. However, that is a real instance of "concentration of benefit, diffusion of cost". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark7-2 (talk • contribs) 09:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]