Talk:Gift economy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Movies

Gifting It: A Burning Embrace of Gift Economy http://www.giftingitthemovie.com/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay_It_Forward —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe2832 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

illegal drugs

I'm not going to add it to the article because I have no sources, but (illegal) drug users in America use something similar (the users, not the dealers). If one stoner has marijuana, so do his friends -- and they will return the favor when circumstances swap. Surely there are similar examples of subcultures using a gift economy; someone with a more research-oriented mind should look into this, as the thought is highly interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.201.198 (talk) 15:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Donations

I've removed the following section, because I don't think it meets the article's own definitions of an "economy" - the blood bank does not give anything back except tea and a biscuit, so I'd argue there's no trade as such. It does impart status, but so do charitable donations. Draw a line somewhere. --Tim (talk) 00:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Donations in medicine

Aspects of gift economies still exist in modern day societies. For example, the blood bank system prevalent in several countries gives no significant explicit reciprocation for donations of blood. Most organ donation systems give no compensation of any sort to the donor or their family; payment in this matter is often considered suspect, even criminal.

• I agree (and previously removed it myself for the same reason only to have it reinserted). Not every act of giving is an example of a gift economy (or partial gift economy) as an economic system. This article is not about gifts, but about a particular economic system. Novaseminary (talk) 04:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

BAD EXAMPLE

BAD example: the sacrifice of animals is very bad example for the gift economy! It should not be mentioned here in this context, because many specialists on sacrifice agree - sacrifice is about power and abuse NOT ABOUT GIFTING!

"sacrifice is about power and abuse"

There is no power struggle between a shepard and their sheep. If the shepard kills them for meat or sacrifice then that is use, not abuse. The reason domestic sheep exist is because the shepard keeps them. They exist for them to use as they wish. 75.93.51.156 (talk) 17:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

SAD AND BAD

One should modernize this article - write on linux, ubuntu, free softwares, free restaurants...! It's a sad and bad article on GIFT ECONOMY! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.167.106.140 (talk) 14:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

RELIGIOUS OBLIGATIONS ARE NOT GIFT ECONOMY

Jewish, Buddhist's... religious donations are A MUST - that has nothing to do with a gift economy! A GIFT IS A GIFT - nothing has to be be expecting in return! This article was much better some years ago - meanwhile, it has been devastated! Why not write on linux? ubuntu? What happens here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.227.133.244 (talk) 06:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Some religious donations are obligations, some are not. For example the older Christian sects do not keep track of gifts and encourage members to give anonymously as was the founder's origional wish.75.93.51.156 (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

WHO IS THE GURU OF THIS ARTICLE?

I wanted to remove all links to religous "gifting" that are not really gift economy... but you don't allow it! Who is the guru here? Why not make any links to linux, ubuntu, Genevieve Vaught...? I gave you time to improve this article - you didn't want add any further information! And you don't allow me to write? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gift Economy 12 (talk • [[Special:Contributions/Gift Economy 12|co--Gift Economy 12 (talk) 12:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)ntribs]]) 13:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Try to make incremental edits and use the talk page to discuss deletion. Viriditas (talk) 13:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Open-source software

The claim about motivation of contributors is unclear. It hints the existence of motivators other than prestige, but doesn't clarify what those could be. Moreover it says that contributors "remain relatively anonymous", which is ambiguous and inconsistent with the fact that contributions are usually attributed at the code commits. Diego (talk) 12:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I've had a go at improving that section. --Nigelj (talk) 13:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Much better, good work. It's now a solid section relating FLOSS with the motivations to make gifts to the community. Diego (talk) 14:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Open source (if GPL is meant) is not a gift - it demands mutuality.

If GPL software is meant as a gift for an user - so should freeware too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.2.30.104 (talk) 03:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

There is only one point of view

I dont see any right-wing economists in citations, only the leftists. I think that some of the statements should be cited also from Hayek or Riddley. For exapmle:Contrary to popular conception, there is no evidence that societies relied primarily on barter before using money for trade.Instead, non-monetary societies operated largely along the principles of gift economics and debt. - this might be true but there is not evidence that the barter was not primary before money. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamil Horky (talk • contribs) 20:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Self-Referential with no real basic definition

There is no basic definition of what "gift economy" means. The entire article relies on understanding what "gift exchange" means, but this never discussed. To make matters worse, "gift exchange" just redirects here. Can someone who understands this subject matter please clarify the basics of what is being discussed here? Leeconte (talk) 22:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Social Media

Blog post in Harvard Business Review on gift economies as it applies to social media http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2012/08/understanding_social_medias_gi.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mycr221 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Derrida and the Gift

It should be acknowledged the commentary on the phenomenon of the Gift as exposed by Derrida in Give Time. It's gives another interpretation by describing the Gift as an structural impossibility, for the Gift annuls itself in the very moment of its occurrence, thus being a delimited concept. This is a very rich interpretation as it explains, Derrida argues, the dynamics of the circle of economy - understood as the circle of exchange and calculation. This analysis of Derrida is strongly influenced by the first contribution of Mauss, i.e. The Gift, thus being an interesting development in a more general "gift economy theory". — Preceding unsigned comment added by SebastianBS (talk • contribs) 14:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

POOR ILUSTRATION

Two photos put on the begining of the article are poor! Why not put some LINUX, OPENSUSE.. photos? Are you working against GIFT ECONOMY HERE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.154.85.42 (talk) 12:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Gift economies go far beyond just open source software. Further, open source software only shares some aspects of gift economies. It's very reasonable to have images that illustrate the larger concept, rather than just on the most recent example. Waitak (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Attribution and reliable sources.

Please remember to use sufficient in-text attribution and reliable secondary sources. Some of the recent edits have not done this and have drop the level of this article, even though there is significantly more content now. Tpylkkö (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Could you provide a citation for that? It is rather disappointing when anonymous editors over-fetishize the footnote. There are, in fact, a far broader range of sources cited in this article, and all of the material is covered by footnotes according to the dictates of the manual of style. In short: You don't have to provide citations for information already sourced: 1) In the lead section 2) If a section of an article summarizes what is in another, more detailed article. 3) If there's an internal link to another article 4) If the information in an article is documented in a section at the bottom of the article.

This article is not using the Harvard style of footnoting, therefore one footnote is placed at the end of the text that it supports. This may frequently include a whole paragraph.

The sources that have been added to this article are all peer-reviewed academic publications by university presses.Schrauwers (talk) 21:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, however, I'm afraid I'm not sure to what you refer to when you ask for a citation? For what exactly? Who are "anonymous editors"? You seem to have misunderstood my point. I didn't mean to imply that more footnotes should be made. Rather that the new edits (in some places) constitute OR as they are syntheses of ideas using primary sources, but the source for the actual synthetic claims are not provided. This them gives the appearance that the synthesis originates from the WP editor (which is by definition OR). I'll give some examples. Currently the article states: "Anthropological research into gift economies began with Bronislaw Malinowski's description of the Kula ring in the Trobriand Islands during World War One" and cites as a source Malinowksi. However, it is highly doubtful that this idea is given by Malinowski. Malinowski does not say in that source (AFAIK) that "research in gift economies began then". Even if he did, he is by definition a primary source, and his claim to be the originator himself should be backed up with a reliable outside source (some one that did not themselves participate in the event described by the sentence). If Malinowski is not saying this, who is saying this then? The editor? (if so that is OR) The best way to avoid this is to state the originator of the claim in the sentence: "according to x, academic studies of gift exchanges began with..." This way the reader knows where the statements come from. These statements should be also balanced as per Wikipedia:NPOV

Perhaps you should look at Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Attribution. Tpylkkö (talk) 14:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I asked for a citation for your comment: "Some of the recent edits have not done this and have drop (sic) the level of this article." Perhaps you could demonstrate that? I have responded that the material is cited according to the MOS, and cited those principles. In reply, you did a blanket reversion of my edits, which included my adding one citation where it was warranted - citing a secondary source about the debate between Malinowski and Mauss. Now that correction has been erased by a demand for a footnote. Ironic. Further, reference citations of original works should not be eliminated. Many readers may want the publication details of the original works, and that is why they were provided.

You seem wedded to the Harvard style of footnoting, which is not the only standard, and certainly not in Anthropology. As I indicated, one note covers a paragraph. The MOS principles support my assertion. The POV expressed is clearly Jonathan Parry, who is cited (twice). Yet, you added a note demanding another citation, to wit: "Discussion on the nature of "gifts", and of a separate sphere of "gift" exchange that would constitute an "economic system," has been plagued by the ethnocentric use of modern, western, market society-based conception of the gift applied as if it is a cross-cultural, pan-historical universal.[citation needed] Anthropologists, through analysis of a variety of cultural and historical forms of exchange, have established that no universal practice exists.4" In fact, the citation is there, number 4. Note 4 covers both sentences. As it is, that article is cited twice in that paragraph already. Why three times? Lastly, the claim that of original research being included is amply rebutted by the ample footnotes of peer-reviewed publications from academic journals and university presses. Trust me, having taught economic anthropology for 15 years, I can reassure you there is absolutely nothing original there.Schrauwers (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

What you say is partially true, that I might in places have wanted to have the statements more exactly cited to a source. However, this does not counter the points that I made about OR and use of primary sources above. The sentence you cite can go without a third citation in that paragraph, if I am asked. However, as Wikipedia:Citing sources states: "The distance between material and its source is a matter of editorial judgment, but adding text without clearly placing its source may lead to allegations of original research, violations of the sourcing policy, and even plagiarism. Editors should exercise caution when rearranging or inserting material to ensure that text–source relationships are maintained." Any one that misunderstands the citational logic is entitled to contest the claim. Now, as far as I am concerned, you have resolved this one specific issue here. What about the other ones? You need not get bent out of shape just because some one contests a part of an edit you made in Wikipedia. Also, editing Wikipedia is in many ways really quite different than writing academic papers or teaching at academic institutes. In academic papers one aims to synthesize ideas from primary sources, whereas in Wikipedia that is the last thing you want to do! Tpylkkö (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

One way of avoiding the problem that you mention, that is, making various claims and having one source, is to state each statement in the paragraph mentioning "who states" (as in [1]). It may seem "ironic" to you that primary sources should avoided. This does not mean that they cannot be mentioned at all. However, if a new statement or claim is made on the basis of that primary source, the new claim needs to be from a reliable source also. This would be clear if you were to read: [[2]] Tpylkkö (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It is ironic that you deleted the footnote I added to provide a secondary source for the Malinowski-Mauss debate, not that primary sources should be avoided. So, we have established that a third citation in paragraph two is not needed. I have also replaced the citation that covers the Malinowski-Mauss debate which you removed when you did the blanket reversion (but without removing the citations to the original works, because those are valuable to those who wish to consult them - at least one is now in the public domain and downloadable). Lets proceed. Your next edit is in the last paragraph of the lead: "Gift economies are said, by some[by whom?]," This is covered by the principle from the MOS listed above in my first response: "You don't have to provide citations for information already sourced: "4) If the information in an article is documented in a section at the bottom of the article." Shall we proceed with the rest? In the next section: "Property is not a thing.[clarification needed][attribution needed]" The clarification is in the next two sentences and covered by footnote 10. Or, do I have to use the same citation three times (once for each sentence)?Schrauwers (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It may have been deleted in the revert, but it is recoverable. I think that the statement "property is not a thing" is unclear, ambiguous and non-encyclopedic. Actually, I don't even understand what it is trying to say, or how this statement could ever be demonstrated by a source. You keep saying "do I need to use the citation various time". I think you are being difficult on purpose, as I stated already that this is not what I think should be done, rather the text should be written in such a manner that it is clear, without doubt, that each setntence (or claim) is the claim of such such and such. Then you can clearly cite the source once, if you give such clarifying attribution. Tpylkkö (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

It was not recoverable, but I put it back anyway. Since we have agreed this is not about citations, I will remove the "citation required" tags. To clarify the "Property is not a thing" statement I have linked it to the Wikipedia article on the subject. It is clearly encyclopedic. You have asked for clarification - let me know if the link is to your liking.Schrauwers (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for being productive, and I hope we can get along. However, I don't really see how the article that you linked to explains "property is not a thing". It doe not use these words for sure, but it does not use any reliable source from which this could be paraphrased from AFAIK either. What on earth is a "thing" in this context? Does it mean "an object"? But why would anyone suppose that to be the case in the first place? Is there a source where it is claimed that "property is an object" or "a thing"? And then this is negated by the source here (i.e the link?) Tpylkkö (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The statement is not considered controversial, and that is how every lecture on property starts in every law school, and every economic anthropology class. There are literally hundreds of citations I could provide, but I thought the two I listed sufficient, because this statement is just background to a discussion of gift exchange. To delve into it, in detail, check the other main article.Schrauwers (talk) 19:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I never said that it is considered constroversial, I merely stated that I do not understand what it is trying to say, and who is saying it. Relatively simple: who said it and where? So that the reader has a chance to understand it's meaning if they so willTpylkkö (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

See note 12.Schrauwers (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

You mean: ^ Coleman, Gabriella (2004). "The Political Agnosticism of Free and Open Source Software and the Inadvertent Politics of Contrast". Anthropological Quarterly 77 (3): 507-19.? I have that article in front of my face right now, and I fail to see where it states that "property is not a thing" or anything even remotely in that direction. Please elaborate. Tpylkkö (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

yes, page 509, the last paragraph before the new section. Think of it this way. Is software a "thing"? And why did you replace my Weiner citation with a Citation needed tag and then accuse me of a sneaky deletion? Schrauwers (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know whether or not software is a thing. Perhaps it is. I don't even know what you mean by "thing", that is whether you mean something like "object" as in Object (philosophy). But this is all unimportant, as the source you cite does not say this, and the article does not cite that source in this context. Therefore, it is you who is making this claim. Therefore, it should be deleted, unless you can find a source. Tpylkkö (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

For the record that paragraph you cite is here:

As noted by Herman and Coombe in this journal, the persuasive force of neoliberal rhetorics of property rights lie in their corporeality as an habituated ethos that defines the proper, veritable, and, thus, supposedly singularrelationship between consumers, objects, and corporations. Though they astutely assert that intellectual property regimes are bent toward the "incorrigible" and are "resistant to revision," FOSS has inadvertently performed with some degree of success against this habituated stance. FOSS provides another existing and transposable model for new legal possibilities composed of an aggregate of practices, licenses, social relationships, artifacts, and moral economies and, thus, enters a wider public debate on the limits of intellectual property primarily though visible cultural praxis. Its "success" is that it transformed what is purported to be a "singular" field of intellectual property law into one that is now multiple, offering new instruments and justifications for their use"Tpylkkö (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, it is. Remember, we have agreed that one citation can cover several sentences. That is because the sentences are tied by a single idea. Here, we are talking about intellectual property as an example of property, and that is because intellectual property exemplifies that property is not a thing. To repeat Herman and Coombe, neoliberal rhetorics of property rights are persuasive because they are said to lie in their "corporeality." This article is all about non-corporeal property as a form of resistance to neoliberal rhetorics. I would appreciate it if you put back my example of intellectual property.Schrauwers (talk) 20:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

By the way, you seem to have Jstor access, so here's a classic anthropological article on property: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4284948 I will be sure to cite it when I edit the property page.Schrauwers (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Let's put it back, because I can see the point as relevant. However, let's source it properly this time. I disagree that this article is about "non-corporeal property as a form of resistance to neoliberal rhetorics". It is about gift economy. Some modern practices of "resisting neoliberal rhetorics" can perhaps be seen as pertaining to "gift economies", but this articles is not about that only, however. Tpylkkö (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The article is about resistance - see the concluding paragraphs for a summary. Also, see the example of Copyleft below (once I get a chance to write it). Now, the next one. I noted above that I included the footnote to Malinowski's book as a reference (and same for Mauss) - these are classics for which citations should be provided the first time they are mentioned. However, the paragraph is about the debate. The reference for the paragraph is at the end of the paragraph, a principle we established as OK.Schrauwers (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I reviewed the page and agree that Schrauwers has inserted and reiserted unsourced original synthesis. I therefore returened the original research template that he had removed here [3] without discussion 62.142.58.210 (talk) 09:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The editor (Schrauwers)is using false edit summaries to cover up their track...128.214.69.227 (talk) 13:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Today [4] Schrauwers has yet once again entered the very same source and content that was shown to be origian interpretation of a source without any support for the interpretation from a reliable source. I have reverted this edit, again. This is not very constructive, please read up on the use of sources and original research. You have now attempted to formulate two separate interpretions from the same source, both original interpretation. The sources given neither state that "property is not a thing" nor that the there is currently debates on intellectual property that can be related to gift exhange or to "property is not a thing", whatever that even means. Please do atleast attempt to clarify what you mean, instead of just stubbornly re-entering and reverting edits without discussion. Also, it is very dishonsest and sneaky to revert and edit and put in the summary "reverted edit", when you actualyl add content that was not previouslyt there. this makes it seem that the revert that you are making is more reasonable than what it is.62.142.58.210 (talk) 10:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello anonymous IP address from Helsinki. Could you please refrain from knee-jerk revisions of carefully thought out edits designed to address the issues raised by non-anonymous user Tpylkkö. The Coleman reference was moved to specifically address the issue of debates in intellectual property law. As you seem unable to understand the technical language of the article, I have included numerous other references all of which make the same point. There are many many more, because this is considered a very, very, very basic point on property (not OR). I would also refer you to the lengthy section below on the "new intellectual commons" for how it relates to gift economies.Schrauwers (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, please be more specific when you write claims on the basis of articles, so as to avoid accusations of the synthesis from the sources being your own. The paragraph that you refer to is poorly expressed. It is not apparent from the the wording what is supposed to be an example of what and according to whom. You seem to not understand what is meant with "original research" in wikipedia. Even if you have one hundred citations that are involved in debates about intellectual property, the minute that you make your own synthesis of them, that is say that they are an example of this and that, you or displaying original research, unless you have a reliable source for those synthetic claims from the primary sources. This problem seems to stem from the fact that you don not understand this simple point. You have argued many times that numerous sources exist that say that the intellectual property debates are an example of something, however you have only shown sources of the intellectual debate, and no source for claim that these events can be seen as examples of whatever it is that you are trying to say. I think you are trying to say that they are examples of "property is not a thing", although this is not clear because of the poor language used. But you refuse to give the source that says that they are examples. I think this is because there is no such source, and it is you who are using Wikipedia to promote your own. Read [5] and [6]. In the second link it specifically says: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". This is what you are doing here. 88.114.154.216 (talk) 11:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Tpylkko (aka 88.114.154.216). Do not presume you are the only one who understands the point. No original synthesis, no original research. Just a very basic, widely agreed upon point, multiply cited.Schrauwers (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Then why don't you demonstrate this, instead of just saying that this is the case? Also, in that case, why not write the passage in such a way that it indicates this. First, I would take out "property is not a thing" which seems to implicate that the reader assumes property to be "a thing". The concept "bundle of rights" could be mentioned thereafter, but I don't really see how necessary that is at all. The source mentioned doesn't even touch the idea of "bundle of rights" nor does it use that term at all. One then wonders, why is this necessary at all? 88.114.154.216 (talk) 07:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Tpylkko (aka 88.114.154.216). So let us be clear. Your problem is a statement that you disagree with, no matter how many citations are given?Schrauwers (talk) 13:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. You are starting to understand. If you synthesize new ideas on the basis of primary sources, it does not matter how many primary sources you have. This is in line withWikipedia:Citation overkill but also with [7] and [8]. So, when you cite 5 citations that are involved in the debate on intellectual property, and make a synthetic claim thereof (and this claim is presented by not a single source you give), are you not doing the following: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.[8] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article." 88.114.154.216 (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

In essence you are making claim A that "property is not a thing", using as a source [9], then claiming B that "there is a debate on intellectual property" giving citations 13-17 and then claiming C that "A is demonstrated by B", but give no source for C. 88.114.154.216 (talk) 10:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no combination of material from different sources. I do understand your point, it just doesn't apply here. There are multiple valid citations here, which perhaps you should read. You disagree with the point despite multiple citations given to back it up. That would seem to be POV on your part.Schrauwers (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I understood this to be the case, because you said so in your edit summary. However, if there is no such combination, then why not give the source of the claim in the sentence as requested by the tag? In my opinion the Coleman article is not the best possible source for that since it only mentions in passing something about intellectual property, but does not actually talk about the claims in this article at all, not does it even contain the words and expression (or analogs) mentioned here.... Tpylkkö (talk) 08:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Missed seeing your comment up here as well. The source of the claim has been multiply given. In your opinion the Coleman article is not the best source. However, it does not mention intellectual property "in passing"; the entire article is about how a current debate about intellectual property rights is an example of how property is not a thing but a social relationship (i.e., that software is not "property" for some, but "free speech"). The article clearly makes the point, as do the other 4 provided. So again, your objection would appear to be POV not supported by citation.Schrauwers (talk) 12:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

You can avoid missing comments on the talk pages by looking at the history of the talk page, by the way. But is your point not in contradiction with what you said earlier (above) about the mentioned source article. If what you are now saying is true then don't you think that the statement is failing to give a neutral point of view? Because here you say that the source article is claiming that there are some people for whom software is "not a thing" but is "an act of free speech". This wikipedia article currently does not say that "for some software is an act of free speech" but is claiming as a fact that "property is not a thing". However, you just said - and claimed in addition the source to be saying - that this is a non-concensus politically motivated view. This is also the reason why the paragraph begins with the implication that the reader must assume property "as a thing". For example the book Law of Property Rights Protection: Limitations on Governmental Powers by Jan Laitos says in §5.03 that this is but one commonly accepted definition of property. The same source mentions but once the phrase "property is not a thing", however it is mentioned in the context of discussing the how the idea of "bundle of rights" came to play a role in 19^th century legislation in the USA. I think I would avoid using the phrase altogether. Tpylkkö (talk) 09:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

My point is not in contradiction. The article covers a debate. Discussing both sides of a debate is what having a neutral point of view is about. Your own citation provides more support for the phrasing as it stands. It also points to another case of property being a social relationship: that 19th century USA debate was about slaves - people - being treated like things that could be owned (chattel).Schrauwers (talk) 13:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

How do you see saying "property is not a thing", as covering "both sides of the debate? 88.114.154.216 (talk) 08:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Both sides of the debate and the points they agree on (property is not a thing but a social relationship) is covered in the full paragraph: "Property is not a thing, but a relationship between people about things. An example is the current debates around intellectual property rights. Hann, as one of many, gives the example of a purchased book (an object that he owns), over which the author retains a "copyright". Although the book is a commodity, bought and sold, it has not been completely "alienated" from its creator who maintains a hold over it."

At this point I simply cannot believe that your lack of understanding of this point could be a result of poor expression on my behalf. I cited a source that explicitly says that the definition is but one (perhaps even rare) definition. The way you see it, is that this further supports the view that "property is not a thing" is a definition that everyone agrees on!? Currently the paragraph "debunks", so to say, the theory that "property is a thing". Who then are the people that believe the "debunked" theory? Why are they not mentioned and sourced if it is indeed that this is an alternative view or theory on property? In addition, to me it seems as though the second and third paragraph (of this subtitle) are saying the same thing in their first (or first two) sentences. Tpylkkö (talk) 05:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Lets start with this section because it should be easy to deal with given what we agreed above.

Gift vs Prestation Malinowski's study of the Kula ring[13] became the subject of debate with the French anthropologist, Marcel Mauss, author of "The Gift" ("Essai sur le don," 1925).[14][non-primary source needed] Malinowski placed the emphasis on the exchange of goods between individuals, and their non-altruistic motives for giving the gift: they expected a return of equal or greater value (colloquially referred to as "Indian giving").[citation needed] In other words, reciprocity is an implicit part of gifting; there is no such thing as the "free gift" given without expectation.[original research?] Mauss, in contrast, emphasized that the gifts were not between individuals, but between representatives of larger collectivities.[citation needed] These gifts were, he argued, a "total prestation."[citation needed] They were not simple, alienable commodities to be bought and sold, but, like the "Crown jewels", embodied the reputation, history and sense of identity of a "corporate kin group," such as a line of kings.[citation needed] Given the stakes, Mauss asked "why anyone would give them away?"[citation needed] His answer was an enigmatic concept, "the spirit of the gift."[citation needed] A good part of the confusion (and resulting debate) was due to a bad translation.[original research?] Mauss appeared to be arguing that a return gift is given to keep the very relationship between givers alive; a failure to return a gift ends the relationship and the promise of any future gifts.[15]

citations 13 and 14 are simply to reference the works. The debate and all of the demands for citation (I count 7) are all covered by the footnote 15. Or should I use the same footnote 7 times?Schrauwers (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• I noticed that once again the edit was reverted stating that under dispute the "it goes back to original". Technically this is not true. This is because under dispute it goes back to last edit that had concensus. Second of all, there is no dispute, because I clearly stated above that the point can be re-entered in my opinion, if a source stating so can be found. Therefore I have reverted it again. But let's not sink to low as to get stuck in a edit-war. Let's rather use a real source, if we can find one. Schrauwers said at one point that "any number of citations" could be used there. However, this was precisely my point, "could be used" but is not currently. Tpylkkö (talk) 10:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Where in source?

Where exactly is this point made in the source refered to?

"The ability to give while retaining a right to the gift/commodity, is a critical feature of the gifting cultures described by Malinowski and Mauss, and explains, for example, why some gifts such as Kula valuables return to their original owners after an incredible journey around the Trobriand islands"

Tpylkkö (talk) 09:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

You will note the subtitle of the book is"The Paradox of Keeping-while-Giving." The whole book is about Kula and her engagement with Malinowski and Mauss. Its a good book, I would recommend it.

Parry or Weiner?

Is this supposed to be from Parry or from Weiner:

"To speak of a "gift economy" in a non-market society is to ignore the distinctive features of their exchange relationships, as the early debate between Malinowski and Mauss demonstrated"

Tpylkkö (talk) 10:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Weiner is cited, but Parry would agree (well, any anthropologist would).

Okay, because the way it was written seemed to indicate that either Parry or Weiner said it. Now that we know, the source can be verified by readers Tpylkkö (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Gift economy or gift exchange?

The title of this article is gift economy and, up until early February, it gave a single bolded synonym in the opening of the lede: gift culture. After the recent storm of edits, mostly by Schrauwers (talk · contribs), the lede now starts with gift economy but quickly blurs this with gift exchange. What we have now seems to be largely based on the writing of Marcel Mauss, from early in the last century, with some input from the writings of Parry and Malinowski. I am not an anthropologist, but I know enough about the gift economy to know that it is a vibrant, modern topic with books, articles and documentaries appearing currently exploring the relationship between successful gift economies - such as the open source software movement, Wikipedia, etc - and the woes of the present economic system. Tying this article down to dull and irrelevant 100 year old historic anthropology debates, while adding a picture of two wedding rings as an example from modern times, is not an improvement in my opinion. Where are Eisenstein, the Transition movement, Occupy, open source and the commons? Hidden away under 'Related concepts'. That's not good enough. While historical and formal academic background is useful, this is not a textbook for 'Anth 101', but is part of a living, modern encyclopedia. When Schrauwers has finished adding his or her textbooks, we are going to have to sort this article out to get some balance and life into it again, I think. --Nigelj (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I actually quite agree, and if you look at the case study section, you'll see that this material will be added.Schrauwers (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

In my view the lead needs work. It mentions irrelevant stuff and gives a very narrow academic anthropological view of the issue.Tpylkkö (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I was informed the lead should reflect the actual content currently in the article rather than what will be put there eventually. As the more current material is added (with proper citation!) the lead should reflect that. I am not sure why a century of academic scholarship is an issue. It adds a cross cultural, historical dimension to the topic. That is surely the goal of an encyclopedia with global reach?Schrauwers (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Yet, it should be according to wikipedia:lead as much as possible. Now it is not. I think parts of it should be moved elsewhere. Tpylkkö (talk) 07:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• I would like to add that Schrauvers has mass deleted content from this article (without discussion and edits summaries), and as of yet no consensus has been formed on this. I am currently sharing the opinion of Niglej that the early February version should be restored. The new version does have some good stuff in it, so I would suggest reverting, and then adding some parts of the new material that Shrauvers has added. Tpylkkö (talk) 11:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Let me start then. I've moved the final two paragraphs to below the content box. Please expand the lead to reflect the content.Schrauwers (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I have made a few formal requests from people understanding economics to come edit this article also Dumazdamaz (talk) 08:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Inalienable possessions.

Could the paragraph under Inalienable possessions be moved to Gift economy#Property and alienability? Seems a bit redundant. Tpylkkö (talk) 07:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The section on property is about property, and sets up how property regimes can affect both intellectual property rights (i.e., the whole section in "related concepts" on IT) and the exchange of gifts, whereas the inalienable possession section is about a more restricted form of exchange activity.

Why has mention of Graeber been deleted?

The current version is arguably very (too much) anthropologically orientated (see above comments) but when you look back in the history it used to have an entire section on David Graeber's theories. Now he is not even mentioned. Why is this? Tpylkkö (talk) 11:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The delete seems to have occured here: [10]. No discussion, no edit summary. What has happened? If no explanation occurs in a few days. I will revert this delete. Tpylkkö (talk) 11:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Ironically, David Graeber IS an anthropologist. The section was on debt (as is the book it cites, not gift giving). The more appropriate work to cite would be the earlier "Toward an anthropological theory of value: the false coin of our own dreams" where he does discuss gift economies. That will be added.Schrauwers (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I would respectfully point out, by the way, that anthropology as a discipline is devoted to representing the breadth of human experience in all it's cultural and historical diversity. How is it possible for the article to be "too" anthropological unless you want to exclude some of that breadth?Schrauwers (talk) 02:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that we can included either of these points in the article, however. And, in your second point you could replace "anthropology" with "sociology" or "economics" and it would still remain just as valid, meaning that the point is not actually addressing what it claims to be addressing at all.Tpylkkö (talk) 08:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

So, to be clear, the "article is 'too anthropological'" but I was in error for removing inappropriate anthropological material?Schrauwers (talk) 12:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course. The fact that the article gives "undue weight" to anthropological theories on the topic does not in any way make it OK for you to delete content without giving a reason, even if that content also happens to be anthropological by chance. Tpylkkö (talk) 16:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Another bizarre delete

[11] This will be reverted unless a good explalation is given. The edit sumammary says that "source is from 1982 and before open access journals, therefore it is original research". First, I'm not sure if the editor understand's what Open Access means, since they are saying something like this. Wikipedia articles can use sources that are OA or not. The historical argument makes no sense, since usually old articles are Open access, becuase their owners no longer care for the copy right, and copy right law protects authors for only a certain time (75 years?). Second, they probably do not understand what original research means. We should always assume good faith, meaning that unless there is evidence that this case is original reasearch, we don't assume it to be such. Currently there is no evidence for this. This will be reverted unless Shrauwers comes up with some explanation. Tpylkkö (talk) 11:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The example is not irrelevant, and will be included (if only I didn't spend so much time on the talk page ;) ). However, a 1982 source cannot be cited as a reference for the open source movement, although that 1982 journal article MIGHT now be available as open source.Schrauwers (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I would also point out that at the bottom of the article there is a section labelled "characteristics" where I have kept all the other original material from the page as I found it until it could be placed, properly cited, in the main article.Schrauwers (talk) 04:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Economics point of view?

Could use any input from people understanding economics. Dumazdamaz (talk) 08:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I find the current debate over property and other aspects of this page to be quite puzzling. As a political economist, I take for granted the social nature of all economic relations and transactions. In fact, economics is a branch of social science for this reason precisely. If we don't start from a position that acknowledges the "social" fact of property, we cannot comprehend any of the consequences of its trade, exchange or ownership. One contributor has used the notion of copyright to make this point; let me suggest that so-called 'real' property (land) is another example. Turning parts of the planet into something that can be owned, exchanged and alienated is a socially and culturally constructed notion. In fact, it's so culturally based that some peoples cannot (and could not) imagine how you could convert the basis of life itself into a 'thing' to be owned. In other words, not all concrete 'things' can be property because 'owning' is a social relationship and has nothing to do with the nature of the 'thing' owned. I have no concerns with the way the page has been written and think it is sufficiently cited as is.Wolfian67 (talk) 20:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• I was randomly selected by RFCbot to comment here. This request is too vague to serve as the basis for any consensus. Please state the request explicitly (and neutrally). What is it you are asking for input about? Jojalozzo 20:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• :An "Economy" is simply the system of how things are produced, and distributed.

The article seems to be more about what the definitions and types of various currencies for "gift economies" are, which I would say is the interesting part of the article. For example, what does one have to do to be the "Big Man" in the south pacific, etc.

There seems to be a fixation of "market versus non-market economies" which in this article seems to add noise that really isn't necessary, and a bit of a misnomer in some places where it is used.

For example, the first paragraph, which seems to set the tone of the article, states the following quotes/ideas are from "Bloch and Parry" when it is actually from a political activist named Bolier... If you peek at the text cited by "Bloch and Parry" - they are talking about the currencies about "gift economies." So it would be good to get rid of references of market and non-market economies - as those economic systems are not really pertinent.. there are market and non-market gift economies cited in the article - the main thing of interest is the currency used, and the culture surounding them.

Where the market versus non-market arguments come up are with political activists trying to advocate change in their market economic model to a more non-market economic model. I think that is why the "Property and alienability" makes little sense (as Wolfian67 states also). That part would be more appropriate (economically speaking) under a heading something to the effect of "Issues of Property rights of Producers and Gift Economies" placed under "related concepts." This is because in generic terms - in any "Economy" - what the legal status is of the property does not matter - all that matters is simply where things come from, and how are they distributed, with the interesting thing being the currency used for this trade (the drug trade would be a good example to illustrate this possibly - with both market and non-market examples btw). Patriot1010 (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• I should point out that the paragraph originally stated that "According to Bloch and Parry" ... "some" thought gift economies "built community"; but the sentence was tagged much like the subsequent section "Property and alienability" by someone who needed to know "who" exactly? So I added the Bolier citation as an example of who says this, although I think it better to leave it ambiguous as there are many examples throughout the article. I would willingly remove the Bolier citation.Schrauwers (talk) 00:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• I think the reason property has to remain as a central theme in this article follows from the understanding of it as social relationships. If both gift exchange and property (that which is exchanged) are understood as socially determined and determining, then what is 'giftable' is going to be culturally specific but also analytically revealing. As in my example, where 'land' cannot be conceived of as property in certain contexts, specific gift economies are going to delineate appropriate types of property (necklaces and armbands in the Trobriands) for gifting as opposed to market trading (food, tools). The fact of being 'giftable' or not is an inherent aspect of various types of 'property' and forces the two concepts to be interdependent.Wolfian67 (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

To some extent yes, however, a small additional point: in the Trobriands (at least according to the classical ethnographies that are about 100 years old) foods and tools can (and are) be gifted. Malinowski argues that while technically necklaces that are giftable have an instrumental value (can be used for a aesthetic cause), still many of them are not intended for any such use. For example bracelets were occasionally too small to fit any human arm. In this context the fact that makes the distinction is not that they are "giftable", but that their sole purpose is to be giftable (for prestige purposes). Of course, this argument is still philosophically problematic as stated by Patriot1010 above. Malinowski does in fact state that he wanted to show that "other non civilized people" have exchange systems "unlike any we have". Then perhaps he does have a "politcial (cultural relativism) reason behind his "discovery", and is a "political activists trying to advocate change in their market economic model to a more non-market economic model". However, what kind of sources exist that express such points of view? Tpylkkö (talk) 08:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

So uh what's the question? MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 10:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The question was presented here: [12] the concern that there is a whole literature not mentioned in this article. Literature that is mostly economic, according to the editor (NigelJ). Dumazdamaz (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Tpylkko gives the example of a bracelet with no "use value" therefor having been made for the sole purpose of being giftable. However, Weiner and Mauss both argued that it was not made for exchange, but for keeping: they are inalienable possessions meant to be kept (i.e. as a particular kind of property (immovable property) that an entire western tradition (amongst others) of property law is based on. So property relations are clearly important. Patriot1010 (above) questions why the distinction between market and non-market is important, and here I would point to the example in the article of blood and organ donation. Clearly, it is very important in some countries that these remain non-commodities and only be exchanged through non-market channels.Schrauwers (talk) 13:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• The statement about bracelets being for "non use purposes" in Kula exchange is from Malinowski (not my example). The same source also argues this to be "evidence" for the fact that Kula exchange is not "normal western exchange" or barter. While I currently have no source for the follwing idea, I suspect that many people would not accept Malinowski's view. This is because the bracelets and other items are exchanged in ritualized reciprocity, and those that posses them receive considerable prestige from this (which could be argued to give the items "use value", since it is a universal property of humans to desire fame). 88.114.154.216 (talk) 08:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Hello Tpylkko. You don't have to go far in the article to find a source that someone immediately disagreed with Malinowski - that was why I mentioned Mauss and Weiner above (as does the article). But, as opposed to your idea focussed on the exchange of these bracelets, they demonstrated that the value of these goods (and the prestige) derived from keeping them out of exchange. Keeping them out of exchange made them "invaluable" (think of the Crown jewels).Schrauwers (talk) 12:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Hi, you seem to be assuming that I want to disagree with Malinowski for the sake of disagreeing with him, so that any source that disagrees with him in any way would be something that I want, and could solve the problem mentioned above. This is not the case. I also think it is too strong of a wording to say that Weiner "demonstrated" what you say she did. She speculated on the issue. And, in addition, it makes little sense as the bracelets were exchanged and hoarding them was sanctioned. What I think might be a good source is a speculative sentence I found in Appardurai: The Exaggeration and reification of the contrast between gift and commodity in anthropological writing has many sources. Among them are the tendency to romanticize small-scale societies... and the proclivity to marginalize and underplay the calculative, impersonal, and selfaggrandizing features of non-capitalist societies". Appadurai 1986 The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural PerspectiveTpylkkö (talk) 06:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• I wasn't sure exactly what your issue was. You have made it clearer with the quote from Appadurai. But that's confused me all over again, since the entire article has been written from that perspective. To quote from the lead: According to Parry, discussion on the nature of "gifts", and of a separate sphere of "gift" exchange that would constitute an "economic system," has been plagued by the ethnocentric use of modern, western, market society-based conception of the gift applied as if it is a cross-cultural, pan-historical universal. However, he claims that anthropologists, through analysis of a variety of cultural and historical forms of exchange, have established that no universal practice exists. His classic summation of the gift exchange debate highlighted that ideologies of the "pure gift" "are most likely to arise in highly differentiated societies with an advanced division of labour and a significant commercial sector" and need to be distinguished from non-market "prestations." According to Weiner, to speak of a "gift economy" in a non-market society is to ignore the distinctive features of their exchange relationships, as the early debate between Malinowski and Mauss demonstrated.

The rest of the article continues to emphasize the need to view gifting as non-altruistic. It talks about alternate exchange spheres specifically to avoid connotations of gift altruism in most western societies.

Your dismissive rejection of Weiner's work as "speculative" is, I hope, a simple ESL mistake. Weiner's conclusions (not speculations) are based on a lifetime of field research in three different cultures. She was a well respected former president of the American Anthropological Association, and her numerous articles went through academic peer review in high impact academic journals. Her book, Inalienable Possessions, has been cited over 1000 times in other peer reviewed publications. Apparently the academic world has been swayed.Schrauwers (talk) 12:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Schrauwers, I'm sorry, but I fail to see how any of that has anything to do with the issues mentioned above. Tpylkkö (talk) 13:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• so, like MIVP and Jojalozzollozzo I request that you clearly articulate the issue.Schrauwers (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Is this addressing me? MIVP and Jojalozzollozzo where not talking to me at all (AFAIK). I personally don't think that field reports and observational studies "demonstrate" anything. See article on obsv. study: [[13]]Tpylkkö (talk) 13:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Panem et circenses

Are panem et circenses examples of a gift economy? If not, should it be explained in the article? --Error (talk) 23:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

No and hell no!. Why would we explain something that is not a gift economy here? Diego Moya (talk) 08:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Because I don't understand the difference. If there are more confused people around, some editor could dispel the confusion. --Error (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

This article is full of unclear sentences

I don't know if this is because this topic is dominated by anthropologists and anthropologists can't write but this article is pretty awful as it stands

Agreed. This is very far from an encyclopedic article, i.e. aimed at the general public, and is way way too focused on discussing the concept from the point of view of anthropology and in terms and details only anthropology students/enthusiasts would ever care about. Even in making it overly technical it should've been primarily an economic description since the term we're talking about here names a type of economy, not a type of culture (notice the word "economy" right in the title).

Donjoe (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

A couple examples,

"Gift exchange is frequently "embedded" in political, kin, or religious institutions, and therefore does not constitute an "economic" system per se.[3]

Why is embedded and economic in quotation marks? why does this not constitute and economic system. This is the third sentence of the article and it directly contradicts the first one!

The whole paragraph that starts the "Principles of gift exchange" section makes no sense and because it is the first one a reader sees after the intro, it is quite important.

"According to anthropologist Jonathan Parry, [Why should the ready care about Jonathan Parry?] discussion on the nature of gifts, and of a separate sphere of gift exchange that would constitute an economic system [who has this discussion?], has been plagued by the ethnocentric use of modern, western, market society-based conception of the gift applied as if it is a cross-cultural, pan-historical universal[when the ready doesn't even know what a gift economy is, how can they understand how the concept is being applied wrongly?]. However, he claims that anthropologists, through analysis of a variety of cultural and historical forms of exchange, have established that no universal practice exists.[4] His classic summation[again, why should the reader care about Jonathan Parry?] of the gift exchange debate highlighted that ideologies of the "pure gift" "are most likely to arise in highly differentiated societies with an advanced division of labour and a significant commercial sector" and need to be distinguished from non-market "prestations."[5][what is a prestation?] According to Weiner, to speak of a "gift economy" in a non-market society is to ignore the distinctive features of their exchange relationships, as the early classic debate between Bronislaw Malinowski and Marcel Mauss demonstrated.[6][7][who are these people?]

This article just needs a lot of work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.128.207.199 (talk) 04:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)