Talk:Tragedy of the commons

Label, and the thing it denotes.

While the edit by user Novern Linguae means to get to the heart of the matter at once, which is usually desirable, in this case it really is quite important not to telescope two quite different entities. The Tragedy of the Commons is not, and never was, a concept: it is just one modern label (arguably, even a glib label) for a concept (or, more accurately) a range of concepts, imperfectly defined, that have been debated since Aristotle. The lead section got into a mess in the past -- see above, Lead is a tragedy in itself -- for failure to stress this philosophical distinction. Ttocserp 11:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I think before I made my edit, the Google Knowledge Panel was saying The tragedy of the commons is a metaphoric label for a concept that is widely discussed in economics, ecology and other sciences, without saying what the concept is. That's one of my motivations for the change. I'm not particularly invested in that edit though. Up to y'all. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

NPOV

This article is an uncritical presentation of a viewpoint regarded by most economists as having been refuted decades ago. The criticism section is buried so far down that no one will see it, and the Ostrom's who demolished Hardin, are quoted as if they endorse him. I've started trying to get some kind of balance JQ (talk) 18:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Wrong Paul erlich in paragraph 5

Not sure how to edit, but the main info points to the wrong Paul erlich. Should be https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._Ehrlich 2603:8080:7400:E6C:A532:D2D5:6442:B8B8 (talk) 20:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done, on the balance of probabilities based on their respective academic fields. Without access to Nature Sustainability, I can't verify. Thank you for pointing it out. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

"Information entropy" links to the wrong thing?

In the resources section of the application section there is this sentence "Therefore, when talking about resources running out in a digital environment, it could be more useful to think in terms of the access to the digital environment being restricted in some way; this is called information entropy." information entropy is linked to the article about the concept of entropy in information theory, described as "the average level of uncertainty or information associated with the variable's potential states or possible outcomes" (our article). I may just not be knowledgeable enough, (I would say I have a casual understanding of entropy in information theory) but I do not see how these are the same thing. Either they're not the same thing, and that link should be removed, they are the same thing, but some information should be added here to make that connection clearer, or I'm kinda stupid. I don't really feel qualified to make the call JustAnotherCatLover... (talk) 04:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Image choice

Hello @JMF, apologies the the time it has taken me to respond.

Whilst my image choice may perhaps have not been the best, I feel that the current image does not accurately convey the concept. Whilst air pollution does suggest some sort of negative externality, as you note, here it suggests that the atmosphere is the "unfettered, finite resource" being taken advantage of. I don't think the atmosphere is a "common" in this sense.

Perhaps a compromise would be something like litter or pollution in a park, pond, etc.? This both has that idea of a negative consumption externality and also more accurately conveys a "commons" being ruined through over-usage and unfettered access. – Isochrone (talk) 08:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

The image seems to convey the concept well to me. Pollution in general, often air pollution, was one of the classic examples shown in grad school. Since we can't control access to air, it definitely displays unfettered access, and the fact that pollution has become an issue (contrary to the "it's so big we can't possibly pollute it" stance of the 1900s) shows it is indeed finite.

I would not object to an image showing some sort of visually obvious pollution into a waterway, though I suspect it would be more difficult to find. Litter in a park, while it may qualify, is too esoteric to be the main image for the article; "enjoyment of public space" isn't what most people think of when they think "commons".

Two more alternatives: one would be if there's an image demonstrating overfishing, another textbook example. I'm not sure about this one, because it's hard to convey "there aren't many fish because there's so many fishermen" in an image. The second one might be deforestation in Nigeria. Many people cut trees to get firewood with which to cook, which has led to desertification of those environs. While this might be a good example, I feel it's too niche and requires too much explanation, and so would prefer to stick with the current image. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

EducatedRedneck has really said everything I would want to say about the current image. So let me say why I consider unsatisfactory your image of a track eroded to the point of unusabilty. Yes, the people who used it too heavily imposed a kind of cost on other people who might have wanted to use it. But the regular users can cooperate together to reinstate the path and it is largely they who benefit. The cost is not being imposed significantly on anyone else. By comparison, consider the seriously elevated death rate in Karachi and Delhi caused by industrial polluters who don't pay. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)