There's a phenomenon known as the Tragedy of the Commons," which--in the proverbial nutshell--says that if there exists a limited source of something valuable that is available for free (or next to nothing), sooner or later some jackhole will take more than her/his fair share. This emboldens other jackholes to do the same, until the thing of value is gone and/or damaged. Not surprisingly, it boils down to the whole "socialize the costs and privatize the profits" deal that passes for capitalism these days.
But it only occurred to me (as I started gnawing my way through Chris Anderson's The Long Tail) that there is a flip-side--we might even call it the triumph of the commons. As computing and networking costs have dropped so sharply, coupled with the democratization of the tools for photography, artwork, publishing, A/V production, marketing, etc., it throws open the doors for all manner of contribution. Motivations may differ: Exhibitionism, generosity, experimentation, reputation-building, Quixotic windmill-tilting, whatever.
Not too surprisingly, Wikipedia seems to be most often cited as the poster-child for that sort of thing. The (donation-supported) hosting costs are a laughable fraction of the actual value. For that matter, I wouldn't be surprised if its hosting is pure LAMP stack--i.e. completely open-source (and thus the work of committed volunteers). In other words, the cost of the world's encyclopedia comes down to hardware, electricity, backups...and salaries/bennies for the redoubtable SysAdmins who shepherd them. Plus whatever the bean-counters and suits feel the need to skim off the top, of course--but that goes without saying. Even with that, it's cheap at thrice the price.
Ditto for the bloggers, scraping by on Google ads--or something less reputable--who are showing the world that a professionally-groomed face and opinionated mouth are not unique qualifications for political commentary. And the musicians who decide to let their audience, rather than the RIAA suits, dictate when and where their music will be heard.
The point is that, even as a few self-involved morons are Why We Can't Have Nice Things, a relative handful are the reason we can. Overall, I'd say that's a pretty amazing flip-side. And it would be a waste to overly lament the former, when the latter don't see half the kudos they deserve.
