Talk:Gift economy

General tone of article
Well, I don't know if this complaint is legit or not and what people are gonna think of it. There is a paragraph called "principless of gift exchange" where you would expect to get perhaps a list of the features that are necessary for a Gift economy. Instead you get many "critical philosophy"-type ideas on what it is not. Not only is that backwards in itself... it also is something that the reader doesn't care about so much, you know?--137.163.31.190 (talk) 09:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Prestation
This term is not clearly defined even in wiktionary prae in front of + stare to stand. In English law it has an antique ecclesiastical meaning, while in Spanish and French it mostly means a loan or else the performance of a duty - for example by officials to taxpayers or by commercial employees serving clients.

The Law of obligations suggests this could mean a reciprocal duty as in commercial co + merce = mutual merit, which rather takes it out of any interpretation of a gift, which does not imply a duty either to give or to receive any benefit - or am I missing something obvious perhaps? Timpo (talk) 14:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

128.214.144.33 (talk) 14:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * no, you are not missing something... the article was written almost single-handedly by one person, and that person appears to have had a quite eccentric style. Definitely not standard English here...

Gift vs Commodity in Gregory: four or five differences
The quote from Gregory's book (section "Spheres of exchange and 'economic systems'") mentions four differences between gift exchange and commodity exchange: alienable goods	 vs inalienable goods, actors independent vs actors dependent, quantitative relationship vs qualitative relationship, and objects vs people. But the table provided right after claims that Gregory "opposes gift and commodity exchange according to five criteria". While I agree that that immediate exchange vs delayed exchange is key in distinguishing between gift and commodity, this does not seem to be important enough for Gregory to mention it in the cited definition. So I am wondering whether this claim is correct and if it is, I suggest to add a reference to the exact page where Gregory talks about the temporal dimension. --Tophee1 (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe should be rewritten
This piece lacks focus and and generality. A good encyclopedia entry should attempt to focus on the most salient and important aspects of the topic at hand. Here a certain expert social scientific register is adapted and the discussion steered into many little minute and sophisticated details. The end result is that the narrative looses focus and relecanve for the average reader. The piece claims to be an encyclpedic explanation of "gift economy" but appears to be one of "the history of various anthropological theories on exchange". This is probably not deliberate, but more a result of the fact that most of the text has been written by one individual not that familiar with Wikipedia88.195.243.29 (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Note about the 'Reciprocity and the "spirit of the gift"' section
Integration of the last sentence (see below), concerning gifting in the "virtual world" context, does not feel natural. In particular, it is not clear what "economics game changer variable" is and how it fits into the narrative of the section.

"Within the virtual world the proliferation of public domain content, Creative Common Licences, and Open Source projects have also contributed to what it might be considered an economics game changer variable." Laznik (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Guillen's comment on this article
Dr. Guillen has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

"The article is interesting and well written. I don't think it is a good idea to add a reference to the "gift exchange game" but rather a link to a disambiguation page that itself links to an article describing gift exchange in experimental economics."

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Guillen has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:


 * Reference : Chong, Sophia & Guillen, Pablo, 2012. "The discreet charm of the collective contract," Working Papers 2012-03, University of Sydney, School of Economics.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gift economy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120821233230/http://flossproject.org/report/Final0.htm to http://flossproject.org/report/Final0.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Drinking round
I think an important example of a gift economy is missing here: the round of drinks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Round_of_drinks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.54.103.246 (talk) 08:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I will add a see also link if it's not already there. Mightyherculescalifornia (talk) 04:13, 17 September 2023 (UTC)