jsalvatier comments on Money: The Unit of Caring - Less Wrong

95 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 31 March 2009 12:35PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (126)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: wnoise 22 November 2010 07:02:17AM 10 points [-]

Yes, and it's widely regarded as a problem -- for someone with rare skills or knowledge, it is usually far more valuable for them to donate money to buy time from others, rather than to donate their own time. A computer programmer really should not be making and serving soup at a homeless shelter. The same amount of time spent coding could pay for several people capable of doing the same thing.

Wikipedia can directly harness those with rare knowledge, and can do so piecemeal, in five-minute intervals, rather than by taking days at a time as even extremely short employment would require. For them it doesn't make sense to pay someone to write an article on an obscure topic. It does seem to make sense for them to pay for servers and sysadmins.

(It's true that their treatment of experts really could be better. They have managed to drive several experts away because dealing with some of the editors is just not worth the time.)

Are there other areas where it actually makes sense to have volunteered time rather than donating money?

Comment author: jsalvatier 22 November 2010 04:41:29PM 4 points [-]

I agree completely.

Possibly in other software projects where the donors consider it a hobby.

Comment author: David_Gerard 22 November 2010 05:11:11PM 1 point [-]

Oh, excellent example. Yes, that's what Wikipedia is analogous to: software projects are charities that need applied expertise more than they need money. A project can run on very little money indeed if it has sufficient dev brilliance. (Though a company that pays said brilliant devs to work on the project for a living is nice.)