Talk:Societal views on intellectual property

Neutrality dispute
This article had the "The neutrality of this article is disputed." tag, apparently since March 2008. The talk page was emtpy, however. It seems obvious that an article titled "Criticism of intellectual property" contains only criticism, an therefore is not neutral with respect to the term "intellectual property". It might, however, be neutral about that criticism, which is the subject of the article. Please indicate why you dispute the neutrality of an article when you set the tag. This will help fix the problem. --Roger Jeurissen (talk) 22:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I mostly agree, but I'd like to point out that criticism articles can also contain responses to criticism. For example, Criticism of Wal-Mart (a good article) has a mostly neutral tone, explaining the Wal-Mart POV alongside common criticisms. I wasn't the person who tagged the article as disputed neutrality, but I think it could be improved by a little bit more pro-IP response. -- Explodicle (T/C) 14:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Original research everywhere
It looks like most of this is just original research. If no one has any objections, I'm just going to stip it down to the sourced statements and then add stuff back from there. --Explodicle (talk) 20:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing but bias
This "article" is nothing more than a one-sided recitation of handwaving arguments. If Wikipedia doesn't want to delete it, it should at the very least be renamed (to something like "Arguments for and against intellectual property") and edited to include both sides of the debate. MJustice (talk) 10:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * New to Wikipedia? You do understand that ALL criticism articles are biased beyond rationality. Search for any other criticism article. They all fail as far as neutrality goes. Maybe you should stop reading them.66.183.59.211 (talk) 06:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The mere fact that many other articles violate the tenants of wikipedia does not mean that those violations shouldn't be sought out and corrected. Fresheneesz (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Statment with both dubious significance, and dubious logic
"However, as Wikipedia and Free software demonstrate, works of authorship can be written without the incentive of such exclusive rights."

If this argument has been seriously brought up by reliable sources, it should be sourced. Otherwise, this argument is a red herring fallacy and I'd like to remove it such that the arguments made on this page are relevant and non-stupid. Clearly the mere fact that things can happen without monetary incentives has 0 bearing on the argument that those monetary incentives maximize economic efficiency in a market.

I'm removing the sentence from the article, but please replace it if it can be sourced. Fresheneesz (talk) 23:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Why does it have  '0 bearing on the argument that those monetary incentives maximize economic efficiency in a market' ?
 * It is relevant when coupled with the negative aspects/downsides to the economic efficiency argument, i.e. rent-seeking.
 * But you are absolutely right that it should be sourced.
 * Also, I don't get the title of this article, I mean:  'Societal views' ?
 * Mojowiha (talk) 12:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

@Fresheneesz First, it's not a debate but an article about a debate which means that whether an argument is valid or not is irrelevant as long as its usage is well sourced. You are allowed to post a response in the same conditions. Second, no it's not a red hearing to say that intellectual work can be created without monetary incentive. I don't know that you can demonstrate whether innovation would be maximized with out without IP. Although IP creates an incentive for innovation it also limits the ability for innovators to improve upon existing technologies. I see immediate way that we could calculate the which would have the strongest positive impact and even if we did abolish IP it wouldn't necessarily be obvious. Abolitionists do not lose by default. Kamizushi (talk) 02:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Article title
Refactored from another thread

[...] I don't get the title of this article, I mean:  'Societal views' ? Mojowiha (talk) 12:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding your last question on the article's title, I changed the title to "Societal views on..." from "Criticism of ..." in order "to encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing" (see also NPOV). The goal is to encourage editors to add positive criticisms rather than only negative criticisms. Criticism is not just about negative criticisms, although criticism has this biased, unfortunate connotation. --Edcolins (talk) 10:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * But why then  'societal' ? Why not simply  'opposing' ,  'differing' , or even leaving out any word in front of  'views'  entirely? I simply found  'societal'  plainly confusing, since I don't see what  'society'  as such has to do with the subject as discussed here. I can to some extent see why this term is used in the article on societal attitudes towards abortion, since it actually adresses different societies and eras, but since this IP article does not do that, I do not see why  'societal'  is important. Statements are rather  'pro et contra' .
 * Mojowiha (talk) 14:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have nothing against simply Views on intellectual property, although I liked the word "societal" which somewhat conveys that the article should include views from all quarters of society, i.e. from academics, economists, free software developers, philosophers, etc. But "Views on.." alone may be perfectly fine as well. Thanks for the suggestion! Regarding  'opposing' ,  'differing' ,  'pro et contra' , this would encourage polarizing the content, and possibly excluding views that are neither pro nor contra, but somewhat in-between. --Edcolins (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * An additional note: the title "Societal views on ..." does not seem to annoy User:Pnm. See last edits to Societal views on patents and Talk:Societal views on patents. It would make sense to discuss the titles of both articles together, although this is not necessary. --Edcolins (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think Societal views on patents improves on the previous title "Criticism of patents." I don't like "opposing," which confines the content just like criticism. "Views on patents" sounds unencyclopedic to me but I'd almost expect to see a list of quotations on the subject, not an article that coherently stitches together secondary sources. "Views on patents" has the advantage of obviously including legal scholars and economists (whose views I'd might consider professional rather than societal). "Differing views" sounds textbookish, but it does happen to be the boldface phrase I used in the new lead for Societal views on patents because it flowed more naturally.


 * I guess I'm hoping the maximally encyclopedic-sounding title will help produce an encyclopedic article, and think the name suggested in NPOV policy, "Societal views of X," sounds the most encyclopedic. If done well, this article should take a discourse-oriented or topical organization that isn't overly focused on pro and contra. (There are economists on both sides, for example.) It sure will be challenging.


 * I do have a concern with the second half of this article's title and suggest renaming to Societal views on intellectual property protection. Both the old title and the current title Societal views on intellectual property suggest (1) IP is one idea, not a slew of bodies of law and (2) the article is about whether people like that idea or they don't. Keeping a section about other views on the term makes sense, but I'd probably put it at the end instead of the beginning. --Pnm (talk) 00:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If the general consensus prefers "societal", then so be it. I simply did not see what it actually added in meaning or context (nor do I believe it is or sounds more "encyclopedic") to the "views", although that title would perhaps be a bit boring.
 * The point that the title needs to convey that IP is a "contested concept" both in fundamental terms (whether it is considered to be meaningful/appropriate or not to lump all its parts together under the general term IP), and in IP regulations'/legislation's practical effects on society in general (culture, knowledge, economics etc.) in terms of "upsides/downsides" (the mixture of which does not need to amount to a clear-cut "for" or "against" IP).
 * Again, where is the "society" dimension in the form this debate takes? Is it "societies" engaged in debates, or rather "organisations", "interest groups", "subcultures" or simply "individuals"? "Society" carries a lot of connotations that do not seem to fit the various parties in the IP debates (for such "extra meaning" see for instance society and Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft). Therefore, on Wikipedia as a whole I would not like to see the perhaps too negatively biased "criticism" replaced by the (in my opinion) outright misleading "societal" in instances where it is not clear that the debates are between "societies". In this I am aware that I go directly against the suggestion in NPOV policy, but I honestly find this not less biased than criticism, but even more, since instead of posing the (over)simplistic "pro et contra" problem it introduce "society" into any discussion/contested subject, which I find plainly ridiculous. It may have its place as in the case of abortion mentioned earlier, but to use it as a "stock title phrase"? Since this is of course opening up a whole other can of worms, I will post that issue on the NPOV policy talk page.
 * Finally, if it is just something that seems an "eyesore" to me, then by all means keep it. It was only meant as a suggestion, which is also why I didn't flag it. And since most readers will presumably be coming from the link in the intellectual property article anyway, the exact wording of the title is perhaps less crucial.
 * Mojowiha (talk) 03:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There are multiple possibilities, such as Reception of..., Assessment of..., Evaluation of..., or Review of... for some examples. Jesanj (talk) 04:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Mojowiha, those are some good points. It's hard for me to be specific about why, but I agree that "societal" may be misleading. Maybe it's hegemonic? I don't know. I think you can articulate it better than I can. In any case, you've convinced me we should omit it. --Pnm (talk) 05:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Reception of the iPad is one example of that form. Any takers? Jesanj (talk) 05:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't quite feel right to me. It's not a product; there's no originator or recipient. I could see reception used with particular legislation, like "Reception of the Statute of Anne" or "Reception of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act". For all of IP I think more of Perspectives on..., Positions on..., Views on..., Debates about... --Pnm (talk) 23:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I like Views on... Jesanj (talk) 23:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that part of the trouble is that the names that we are most lead to use minimize the issues. In that vein, I suggest "Politics of Intellectual Property".  Naturally, one side will despise this name, but that should highlight the extent to which it truly and plainly is a political dispute.  To sharpen the point of the stick that one side feels in the eye at this turn, you progress to the names "Politics of Copyrights and Patents", "Politics of Copyrights, Patents, and Trademarks", and then to the unreasonably unwieldly "Politics of Copyrights, Patents, and related Monopolies".  That last one has to be shortened, of course, and then you reach the extreme along this line:  "Politics of Information Monopolies".  Since the simple naming will clearly incite partisan howls, we have all the evidence we need that this is, in fact, best labeled a political dispute, and that the article should take at least the first step along this route in order to properly describe the topic.70.74.132.225 (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

organization of this article is all messed up
There are links to Criticism of intellectual property that go here, which is why I think there is a problem with the balance. There probably should either be sections like "benefits of IP" and "drawbacks of IP" or make separate articles like Criticism of intellectual property and let it stand on its own. I think that might make more sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilmaDean (talk • contribs) 12:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

merged this article into intellectual property
This article was hopelessly bad. The bulk of it violated WP:OR and WP:SYN - what remained largely overlapped the criticism section of the intellectual property article. I merged what was salvageable - some of which was very good content and better than what was already there.Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)