Zero Waste - the third generation resource theory
The next resource theory after recycling
This group is to explore and publicize the methods of Zero Waste as a design theory, one that obsoletes theories dependent on finding homes for discarded commodities. In simpler terms, Zero Waste makes the methods of recycling obsolete. Zero Waste goes beyond finding a few "cute" uses for unwanted products. Zero Waste asks how commodities can be redesigne ...learn more
GROUP DETAILS
Created: Jul 16, 2008
Updated: Nov 25, 2009
Membership: Open
Semi-Private
Suggestion has been implemented:
The wording of the Transparency principle in the About Us page now reflects your suggested wording. Thank you for your excellent suggestion.
Problem:
The Principles page was recently edited to remove the following phrase from the Transparency principle: "nor will funding for Wiser be accepted from profit-based entities".
Very likely this action was taken in response to the +8 votes in the discussion about allowing for-profit and governmental entities to participate in WiserEarth.
Suggestion:
Rather than remove this stricture entirely, I suggest it be modified to read "nor will payment for access to Wiser be accepted from any entity." This leaves room for donations from profit-based companies, but steers us clear of an advertising based business model.
-- RogerEaton
Comments (1 - 12 of 12)
|
|
Yes, thanks Roger for your suggestion!
|
|
Roger, just wanted to let you know that Melinda have edited the wordings for the Transparency principle in the About Us page. So, your excellent suggestion has been implemented.
|
|
Thank you, Melinda. With your support now maybe others will climb on board. I hope it is clear that if payment is not accepted for access, then neither is payment accepted for any kind of special access to "power" features, so we don't end up with classes of users.
JT, I think you are opposed to my suggested wording, but I don't really understand your position. Why do you think WE should accept payment for access? Or am I wrong and you are ok with the prohibition of payment for access?
-- Roger |
|
Roger, thanks for your suggestion. This wording makes a lot of sense.
|
|
Jon has been 'fairly consistent' with his position against payment for access:
But : he mentioned a conversation off-line with Melinda " Melinda and I talked about a model like salesforce where for profits pay and non profits dont": and indicated that -- though he was against the idea -- he was 'open to further disscussion'. There was also an indication that basic access could come free, and more rich functionality and disk space could come at a price... which I believe concured with Melinda's comment.
To put Roger's amendment in context -- from my perspective -- they; (NCI and Jon) are framing the issue incorrectly ............. and have painstakingly avoided being clear/ direct on this.
Until= * the decision making process is decoupled from financial participation : *and... active WE users are given an oppurtunity to take ownership over this website by participating in the decision making process, as is consistent to the language that markets this website ...
If / when for profits are allowed on the network : they will control the network/ (the behind the scenes "partner/ board" decision making process) as a product of voluntary financial participation. Thus corruption/ commercialization becomes inevitable. An NCI employee mIchael acknowledged this concern in the main for profit inclusion forum; acknowledged that it was a concern NCI was aware of.
So when Angus says payment for access is a slippery slope: My comment is: at least we know what slope we are on.
Under the current system: if no payment model is suggested ... they donate/ partner so as to control, and have the potential to exert more profound influence from behind the scenes...
I personally can think of a million different ways to make money / or to profit from data gathering off this website; I can imagine people from successful for -profit circles could think up more, and would realize the oppurtunity. Plus their would be excellent PR thru association etc.
The biggest problem to me is: the issue is being continually framed the wrong way.
One of the few rights of a person on wiserearth -- especially a dedicated user / contributor -- is to expect the best of NCI. This does not mean that NCI will always be able to deliver the best, but it does mean that NCI (or one of their paid representatives on wiserearth) will honor the basic guidelines of the community and communicate directly with their resource of dedicated user / contributors.
So when a dedicated user asks: -for some to outline the status of the off-line debate -for someone to communicate why the vision is now one-site instead of 3, pros vs cons -for someone to explain why the voice of the dedicated user does not matter, even though this is inconsistent with the values documents of the wiserearth, and more importantly inconsistent with the way wiserearth is marketed. - for someone to explain what is going on, to communicate effectively, to be clear -asks the question: is this a product of funding needs?
etc.
At the least they deserve a direct, honest answer.
there is more here: Including For-Profit and Public Agencies onWE +8
to summarize: my opinion is this was -- and still is -- being handled poorly.
Clear, direct, honest answers/ communication. As Roger and I both noticed: the change in the Principles leaves open the oppurtunity for Melinda's suggestion for a payment model for sophisticated access to come to fruition: WHY would you do that? if that is not your intent? especially after the discussion @ the above link; it makes no sense...
|
|
@Roger: Sounds good. I also commented that payment for access by for-profits was a slippery slope.
|
|
|
Ok, let's give it a try.
I'd like to bring in melinda, since the idea of payment for specialized WE access by for-profits seems to have originated with her, and she is also the one who modified the Principles page. I'll send her an email inviting her to contribute to the discussion here. The idea was posted on a wiki page where jonramer is also quoted as saying he does not think for-profits should pay, a position he has stuck to consistently as far as I can see. (Jon and Melinda, I trust these quotes do go back to you -- if not, please correct me.)
Here is the quote - for full context see the Scope wiki page:
JR: I don't think they should pay. We don't want advertising. They're profile being on wiserearth means that somebody cared enough to associate them with what we stand for. Let's see how they respond.
MELINDA: I think they should pay. It is an enormous opportunity for the site to sustain itself. Cost structure would depend on size of business. See my above comments. |
|
|
@Roger: Like the suggestion. Let's see if we can get your wording adopted.
|
|
|
fair enough -- i already tried that route and it did not work. I will step back and see what happens here though... I agree with you that pretty much everyone is looking for clarity on this...
peace |
|
|
I'd like to stay positive here, JT, and have a sensible conversation on the merits of my suggestion. I am hoping others will join in and help us gain some clarity on the whole issue of paid access to Wiser.
|
|
|
Roger, that is a good suggestion; it will be interesting to see what they say: that would eliminate 'melinda's' (i dont know if it was really her idea or whether she was just being paid -forced- to type that) "invitation" to pay with cost structure depending on size etc. from coming to fruition...
for what it is worth, at this point, i think it is a lost cause with these people; according to Jon Ramer at the begining of the For Profit Wiki -------------------------- http://www.wiserearth.org/comment/the_masterid/f0f08f5e9a3e176f8ff83064d4676471/master_type/article/sort/DESC/page/4 " Hi Angus, At the WiserEarth Partners meeting it was agreed that WiserEarth is open and the scope can be expanded to include for profit entities and government agencies." |
I think this discussion is an important one; it seems to explain a lot, especially in connection with this page:
http://www.wiserearth.org/article/d46a8a1aa58a144084768be093daa22a
For example, I find the following part very interesting.
MELINDA: We could invite businesses to pay for their dedicated space on WiserEarth, which would in turn help sustain the site. The value prop for businesses would be:
"Grow your base and promote your business practices
From the above, one would think that corporations have never ever corrupted government or politics. Mixing business into WiserEarth.org is just desirous of and/or baiting corruption, imho.
Also, I can't seem to find the original principles page; the current one seems to be quite different (and relatively new).