Talk:Gift economy

Movies

Gifting It: A Burning Embrace of Gift Economy http://www.giftingitthemovie.com/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay_It_Forward —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe2832 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

illegal drugs

I'm not going to add it to the article because I have no sources, but (illegal) drug users in America use something similar (the users, not the dealers). If one stoner has marijuana, so do his friends -- and they will return the favor when circumstances swap. Surely there are similar examples of subcultures using a gift economy; someone with a more research-oriented mind should look into this, as the thought is highly interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.201.198 (talk) 15:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Donations

I've removed the following section, because I don't think it meets the article's own definitions of an "economy" - the blood bank does not give anything back except tea and a biscuit, so I'd argue there's no trade as such. It does impart status, but so do charitable donations. Draw a line somewhere. --Tim (talk) 00:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Donations in medicine

Aspects of gift economies still exist in modern day societies. For example, the blood bank system prevalent in several countries gives no significant explicit reciprocation for donations of blood. Most organ donation systems give no compensation of any sort to the donor or their family; payment in this matter is often considered suspect, even criminal.

• I agree (and previously removed it myself for the same reason only to have it reinserted). Not every act of giving is an example of a gift economy (or partial gift economy) as an economic system. This article is not about gifts, but about a particular economic system. Novaseminary (talk) 04:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

BAD EXAMPLE

BAD example: the sacrifice of animals is very bad example for the gift economy! It should not be mentioned here in this context, because many specialists on sacrifice agree - sacrifice is about power and abuse NOT ABOUT GIFTING!

SAD AND BAD

One should modernize this article - write on linux, ubuntu, free softwares, free restaurants...! It's a sad and bad article on GIFT ECONOMY! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.167.106.140 (talk) 14:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

RELIGIOUS OBLIGATIONS ARE NOT GIFT ECONOMY

Jewish, Buddhist's... religious donations are A MUST - that has nothing to do with a gift economy! A GIFT IS A GIFT - nothing has to be be expecting in return! This article was much better some years ago - meanwhile, it has been devastated! Why not write on linux? ubuntu? What happens here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.227.133.244 (talk) 06:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

WHO IS THE GURU OF THIS ARTICLE?

I wanted to remove all links to religous "gifting" that are not really gift economy... but you don't allow it! Who is the guru here? Why not make any links to linux, ubuntu, Genevieve Vaught...? I gave you time to improve this article - you didn't want add any further information! And you don't allow me to write? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gift Economy 12 (talk • [[Special:Contributions/Gift Economy 12|co--Gift Economy 12 (talk) 12:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)ntribs]]) 13:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Try to make incremental edits and use the talk page to discuss deletion. Viriditas (talk) 13:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Open-source software

The claim about motivation of contributors is unclear. It hints the existence of motivators other than prestige, but doesn't clarify what those could be. Moreover it says that contributors "remain relatively anonymous", which is ambiguous and inconsistent with the fact that contributions are usually attributed at the code commits. Diego (talk) 12:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I've had a go at improving that section. --Nigelj (talk) 13:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Much better, good work. It's now a solid section relating FLOSS with the motivations to make gifts to the community. Diego (talk) 14:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Open source (if GPL is meant) is not a gift - it demands mutuality.

If GPL software is meant as a gift for an user - so should freeware too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.2.30.104 (talk) 03:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

There is only one point of view

I dont see any right-wing economists in citations, only the leftists. I think that some of the statements should be cited also from Hayek or Riddley. For exapmle:Contrary to popular conception, there is no evidence that societies relied primarily on barter before using money for trade.Instead, non-monetary societies operated largely along the principles of gift economics and debt. - this might be true but there is not evidence that the barter was not primary before money. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamil Horky (talk • contribs) 20:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Self-Referential with no real basic definition

There is no basic definition of what "gift economy" means. The entire article relies on understanding what "gift exchange" means, but this never discussed. To make matters worse, "gift exchange" just redirects here. Can someone who understands this subject matter please clarify the basics of what is being discussed here? Leeconte (talk) 22:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Social Media

Blog post in Harvard Business Review on gift economies as it applies to social media http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2012/08/understanding_social_medias_gi.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mycr221 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Derrida and the Gift

It should be acknowledged the commentary on the phenomenon of the Gift as exposed by Derrida in Give Time. It's gives another interpretation by describing the Gift as an structural impossibility, for the Gift annuls itself in the very moment of its occurrence, thus being a delimited concept. This is a very rich interpretation as it explains, Derrida argues, the dynamics of the circle of economy - understood as the circle of exchange and calculation. This analysis of Derrida is strongly influenced by the first contribution of Mauss, i.e. The Gift, thus being an interesting development in a more general "gift economy theory". — Preceding unsigned comment added by SebastianBS (talk • contribs) 14:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

POOR ILUSTRATION

Two photos put on the begining of the article are poor! Why not put some LINUX, OPENSUSE.. photos? Are you working against GIFT ECONOMY HERE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.154.85.42 (talk) 12:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Gift economies go far beyond just open source software. Further, open source software only shares some aspects of gift economies. It's very reasonable to have images that illustrate the larger concept, rather than just on the most recent example. Waitak (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Attribution and reliable sources.

Please remember to use sufficient in-text attribution and reliable secondary sources. Some of the recent edits have not done this and have drop the level of this article, even though there is significantly more content now. Tpylkkö (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Could you provide a citation for that? It is rather disappointing when anonymous editors over-fetishize the footnote. There are, in fact, a far broader range of sources cited in this article, and all of the material is covered by footnotes according to the dictates of the manual of style. In short: You don't have to provide citations for information already sourced: 1) In the lead section 2) If a section of an article summarizes what is in another, more detailed article. 3) If there's an internal link to another article 4) If the information in an article is documented in a section at the bottom of the article.

This article is not using the Harvard style of footnoting, therefore one footnote is placed at the end of the text that it supports. This may frequently include a whole paragraph.

The sources that have been added to this article are all peer-reviewed academic publications by university presses.Schrauwers (talk) 21:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, however, I'm afraid I'm not sure to what you refer to when you ask for a citation? For what exactly? Who are "anonymous editors"? You seem to have misunderstood my point. I didn't mean to imply that more footnotes should be made. Rather that the new edits (in some places) constitute OR as they are syntheses of ideas using primary sources, but the source for the actual synthetic claims are not provided. This them gives the appearance that the synthesis originates from the WP editor (which is by definition OR). I'll give some examples. Currently the article states: "Anthropological research into gift economies began with Bronislaw Malinowski's description of the Kula ring in the Trobriand Islands during World War One" and cites as a source Malinowksi. However, it is highly doubtful that this idea is given by Malinowski. Malinowski does not say in that source (AFAIK) that "research in gift economies began then". Even if he did, he is by definition a primary source, and his claim to be the originator himself should be backed up with a reliable outside source (some one that did not themselves participate in the event described by the sentence). If Malinowski is not saying this, who is saying this then? The editor? (if so that is OR) The best way to avoid this is to state the originator of the claim in the sentence: "according to x, academic studies of gift exchanges began with..." This way the reader knows where the statements come from. These statements should be also balanced as per Wikipedia:NPOV

Perhaps you should look at Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Attribution. Tpylkkö (talk) 14:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I asked for a citation for your comment: "Some of the recent edits have not done this and have drop (sic) the level of this article." Perhaps you could demonstrate that? I have responded that the material is cited according to the MOS, and cited those principles. In reply, you did a blanket reversion of my edits, which included my adding one citation where it was warranted - citing a secondary source about the debate between Malinowski and Mauss. Now that correction has been erased by a demand for a footnote. Ironic. Further, reference citations of original works should not be eliminated. Many readers may want the publication details of the original works, and that is why they were provided.

You seem wedded to the Harvard style of footnoting, which is not the only standard, and certainly not in Anthropology. As I indicated, one note covers a paragraph. The MOS principles support my assertion. The POV expressed is clearly Jonathan Parry, who is cited (twice). Yet, you added a note demanding another citation, to wit: "Discussion on the nature of "gifts", and of a separate sphere of "gift" exchange that would constitute an "economic system," has been plagued by the ethnocentric use of modern, western, market society-based conception of the gift applied as if it is a cross-cultural, pan-historical universal.[citation needed] Anthropologists, through analysis of a variety of cultural and historical forms of exchange, have established that no universal practice exists.4" In fact, the citation is there, number 4. Note 4 covers both sentences. As it is, that article is cited twice in that paragraph already. Why three times? Lastly, the claim that of original research being included is amply rebutted by the ample footnotes of peer-reviewed publications from academic journals and university presses. Trust me, having taught economic anthropology for 15 years, I can reassure you there is absolutely nothing original there.Schrauwers (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

What you say is partially true, that I might in places have wanted to have the statements more exactly cited to a source. However, this does not counter the points that I made about OR and use of primary sources above. The sentence you cite can go without a third citation in that paragraph, if I am asked. However, as Wikipedia:Citing sources states: "The distance between material and its source is a matter of editorial judgment, but adding text without clearly placing its source may lead to allegations of original research, violations of the sourcing policy, and even plagiarism. Editors should exercise caution when rearranging or inserting material to ensure that text–source relationships are maintained." Any one that misunderstands the citational logic is entitled to contest the claim. Now, as far as I am concerned, you have resolved this one specific issue here. What about the other ones? You need not get bent out of shape just because some one contests a part of an edit you made in Wikipedia. Also, editing Wikipedia is in many ways really quite different than writing academic papers or teaching at academic institutes. In academic papers one aims to synthesize ideas from primary sources, whereas in Wikipedia that is the last thing you want to do! Tpylkkö (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

One way of avoiding the problem that you mention, that is, making various claims and having one source, is to state each statement in the paragraph mentioning "who states" (as in [1]). It may seem "ironic" to you that primary sources should avoided. This does not mean that they cannot be mentioned at all. However, if a new statement or claim is made on the basis of that primary source, the new claim needs to be from a reliable source also. This would be clear if you were to read: [[2]] Tpylkkö (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It is ironic that you deleted the footnote I added to provide a secondary source for the Malinowski-Mauss debate, not that primary sources should be avoided. So, we have established that a third citation in paragraph two is not needed. I have also replaced the citation that covers the Malinowski-Mauss debate which you removed when you did the blanket reversion (but without removing the citations to the original works, because those are valuable to those who wish to consult them - at least one is now in the public domain and downloadable). Lets proceed. Your next edit is in the last paragraph of the lead: "Gift economies are said, by some[by whom?]," This is covered by the principle from the MOS listed above in my first response: "You don't have to provide citations for information already sourced: "4) If the information in an article is documented in a section at the bottom of the article." Shall we proceed with the rest? In the next section: "Property is not a thing.[clarification needed][attribution needed]" The clarification is in the next two sentences and covered by footnote 10. Or, do I have to use the same citation three times (once for each sentence)?Schrauwers (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It may have been deleted in the revert, but it is recoverable. I think that the statement "property is not a thing" is unclear, ambiguous and non-encyclopedic. Actually, I don't even understand what it is trying to say, or how this statement could ever be demonstrated by a source. You keep saying "do I need to use the citation various time". I think you are being difficult on purpose, as I stated already that this is not what I think should be done, rather the text should be written in such a manner that it is clear, without doubt, that each setntence (or claim) is the claim of such such and such. Then you can clearly cite the source once, if you give such clarifying attribution. Tpylkkö (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

It was not recoverable, but I put it back anyway. Since we have agreed this is not about citations, I will remove the "citation required" tags. To clarify the "Property is not a thing" statement I have linked it to the Wikipedia article on the subject. It is clearly encyclopedic. You have asked for clarification - let me know if the link is to your liking.Schrauwers (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for being productive, and I hope we can get along. However, I don't really see how the article that you linked to explains "property is not a thing". It doe not use these words for sure, but it does not use any reliable source from which this could be paraphrased from AFAIK either. What on earth is a "thing" in this context? Does it mean "an object"? But why would anyone suppose that to be the case in the first place? Is there a source where it is claimed that "property is an object" or "a thing"? And then this is negated by the source here (i.e the link?) Tpylkkö (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The statement is not considered controversial, and that is how every lecture on property starts in every law school, and every economic anthropology class. There are literally hundreds of citations I could provide, but I thought the two I listed sufficient, because this statement is just background to a discussion of gift exchange. To delve into it, in detail, check the other main article.Schrauwers (talk) 19:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I never said that it is considered constroversial, I merely stated that I do not understand what it is trying to say, and who is saying it. Relatively simple: who said it and where? So that the reader has a chance to understand it's meaning if they so willTpylkkö (talk) 19:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

See note 12.Schrauwers (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

You mean: ^ Coleman, Gabriella (2004). "The Political Agnosticism of Free and Open Source Software and the Inadvertent Politics of Contrast". Anthropological Quarterly 77 (3): 507-19.? I have that article in front of my face right now, and I fail to see where it states that "property is not a thing" or anything even remotely in that direction. Please elaborate. Tpylkkö (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

yes, page 509, the last paragraph before the new section. Think of it this way. Is software a "thing"? And why did you replace my Weiner citation with a Citation needed tag and then accuse me of a sneaky deletion? Schrauwers (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know whether or not software is a thing. Perhaps it is. I don't even know what you mean by "thing", that is whether you mean something like "object" as in Object (philosophy). But this is all unimportant, as the source you cite does not say this, and the article does not cite that source in this context. Therefore, it is you who is making this claim. Therefore, it should be deleted, unless you can find a source. Tpylkkö (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

For the record that paragraph you cite is here:

As noted by Herman and Coombe in this journal, the persuasive force of neoliberal rhetorics of property rights lie in their corporeality as an habituated ethos that defines the proper, veritable, and, thus, supposedly singularrelationship between consumers, objects, and corporations. Though they astutely assert that intellectual property regimes are bent toward the "incorrigible" and are "resistant to revision," FOSS has inadvertently performed with some degree of success against this habituated stance. FOSS provides another existing and transposable model for new legal possibilities composed of an aggregate of practices, licenses, social relationships, artifacts, and moral economies and, thus, enters a wider public debate on the limits of intellectual property primarily though visible cultural praxis. Its "success" is that it transformed what is purported to be a "singular" field of intellectual property law into one that is now multiple, offering new instruments and justifications for their use"Tpylkkö (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, it is. Remember, we have agreed that one citation can cover several sentences. That is because the sentences are tied by a single idea. Here, we are talking about intellectual property as an example of property, and that is because intellectual property exemplifies that property is not a thing. To repeat Herman and Coombe, neoliberal rhetorics of property rights are persuasive because they are said to lie in their "corporeality." This article is all about non-corporeal property as a form of resistance to neoliberal rhetorics. I would appreciate it if you put back my example of intellectual property.Schrauwers (talk) 20:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

By the way, you seem to have Jstor access, so here's a classic anthropological article on property: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4284948 I will be sure to cite it when I edit the property page.Schrauwers (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Let's put it back, because I can see the point as relevant. However, let's source it properly this time. I disagree that this article is about "non-corporeal property as a form of resistance to neoliberal rhetorics". It is about gift economy. Some modern practices of "resisting neoliberal rhetorics" can perhaps be seen as pertaining to "gift economies", but this articles is not about that only, however. Tpylkkö (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The article is about resistance - see the concluding paragraphs for a summary. Also, see the example of Copyleft below (once I get a chance to write it). Now, the next one. I noted above that I included the footnote to Malinowski's book as a reference (and same for Mauss) - these are classics for which citations should be provided the first time they are mentioned. However, the paragraph is about the debate. The reference for the paragraph is at the end of the paragraph, a principle we established as OK.Schrauwers (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I reviewed the page and agree that Schrauwers has inserted and reiserted unsourced original synthesis. I therefore returened the original research template that he had removed here [3] without discussion 62.142.58.210 (talk) 09:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The editor (Schrauwers)is using false edit summaries to cover up their track...128.214.69.227 (talk) 13:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Today [4] Schrauwers has yet once again entered the very same source and content that was shown to be origian interpretation of a source without any support for the interpretation from a reliable source. I have reverted this edit, again. This is not very constructive, please read up on the use of sources and original research. You have now attempted to formulate two separate interpretions from the same source, both original interpretation. The sources given neither state that "property is not a thing" nor that the there is currently debates on intellectual property that can be related to gift exhange or to "property is not a thing", whatever that even means. Please do atleast attempt to clarify what you mean, instead of just stubbornly re-entering and reverting edits without discussion. Also, it is very dishonsest and sneaky to revert and edit and put in the summary "reverted edit", when you actualyl add content that was not previouslyt there. this makes it seem that the revert that you are making is more reasonable than what it is.62.142.58.210 (talk) 10:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello anonymous IP address from Helsinki. Could you please refrain from knee-jerk revisions of carefully thought out edits designed to address the issues raised by non-anonymous user Tpylkkö. The Coleman reference was moved to specifically address the issue of debates in intellectual property law. As you seem unable to understand the technical language of the article, I have included numerous other references all of which make the same point. There are many many more, because this is considered a very, very, very basic point on property (not OR). I would also refer you to the lengthy section below on the "new intellectual commons" for how it relates to gift economies.Schrauwers (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, please be more specific when you write claims on the basis of articles, so as to avoid accusations of the synthesis from the sources being your own. The paragraph that you refer to is poorly expressed. It is not apparent from the the wording what is supposed to be an example of what and according to whom. You seem to not understand what is meant with "original research" in wikipedia. Even if you have one hundred citations that are involved in debates about intellectual property, the minute that you make your own synthesis of them, that is say that they are an example of this and that, you or displaying original research, unless you have a reliable source for those synthetic claims from the primary sources. This problem seems to stem from the fact that you don not understand this simple point. You have argued many times that numerous sources exist that say that the intellectual property debates are an example of something, however you have only shown sources of the intellectual debate, and no source for claim that these events can be seen as examples of whatever it is that you are trying to say. I think you are trying to say that they are examples of "property is not a thing", although this is not clear because of the poor language used. But you refuse to give the source that says that they are examples. I think this is because there is no such source, and it is you who are using Wikipedia to promote your own. Read [5] and [6]. In the second link it specifically says: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". This is what you are doing here. 88.114.154.216 (talk) 11:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Tpylkko (aka 88.114.154.216). Do not presume you are the only one who understands the point. No original synthesis, no original research. Just a very basic, widely agreed upon point, multiply cited.Schrauwers (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Then why don't you demonstrate this, instead of just saying that this is the case? Also, in that case, why not write the passage in such a way that it indicates this. First, I would take out "property is not a thing" which seems to implicate that the reader assumes property to be "a thing". The concept "bundle of rights" could be mentioned thereafter, but I don't really see how necessary that is at all. The source mentioned doesn't even touch the idea of "bundle of rights" nor does it use that term at all. One then wonders, why is this necessary at all? 88.114.154.216 (talk) 07:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Tpylkko (aka 88.114.154.216). So let us be clear. Your problem is a statement that you disagree with, no matter how many citations are given?Schrauwers (talk) 13:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. You are starting to understand. If you synthesize new ideas on the basis of primary sources, it does not matter how many primary sources you have. This is in line withWikipedia:Citation overkill but also with [7] and [8]. So, when you cite 5 citations that are involved in the debate on intellectual property, and make a synthetic claim thereof (and this claim is presented by not a single source you give), are you not doing the following: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.[8] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article." 88.114.154.216 (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Lets start with this section because it should be easy to deal with given what we agreed above.

Gift vs Prestation Malinowski's study of the Kula ring[13] became the subject of debate with the French anthropologist, Marcel Mauss, author of "The Gift" ("Essai sur le don," 1925).[14][non-primary source needed] Malinowski placed the emphasis on the exchange of goods between individuals, and their non-altruistic motives for giving the gift: they expected a return of equal or greater value (colloquially referred to as "Indian giving").[citation needed] In other words, reciprocity is an implicit part of gifting; there is no such thing as the "free gift" given without expectation.[original research?] Mauss, in contrast, emphasized that the gifts were not between individuals, but between representatives of larger collectivities.[citation needed] These gifts were, he argued, a "total prestation."[citation needed] They were not simple, alienable commodities to be bought and sold, but, like the "Crown jewels", embodied the reputation, history and sense of identity of a "corporate kin group," such as a line of kings.[citation needed] Given the stakes, Mauss asked "why anyone would give them away?"[citation needed] His answer was an enigmatic concept, "the spirit of the gift."[citation needed] A good part of the confusion (and resulting debate) was due to a bad translation.[original research?] Mauss appeared to be arguing that a return gift is given to keep the very relationship between givers alive; a failure to return a gift ends the relationship and the promise of any future gifts.[15]

citations 13 and 14 are simply to reference the works. The debate and all of the demands for citation (I count 7) are all covered by the footnote 15. Or should I use the same footnote 7 times?Schrauwers (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• I noticed that once again the edit was reverted stating that under dispute the "it goes back to original". Technically this is not true. This is because under dispute it goes back to last edit that had concensus. Second of all, there is no dispute, because I clearly stated above that the point can be re-entered in my opinion, if a source stating so can be found. Therefore I have reverted it again. But let's not sink to low as to get stuck in a edit-war. Let's rather use a real source, if we can find one. Schrauwers said at one point that "any number of citations" could be used there. However, this was precisely my point, "could be used" but is not currently. Tpylkkö (talk) 10:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Where in source?

Where exactly is this point made in the source refered to?

"The ability to give while retaining a right to the gift/commodity, is a critical feature of the gifting cultures described by Malinowski and Mauss, and explains, for example, why some gifts such as Kula valuables return to their original owners after an incredible journey around the Trobriand islands"

Tpylkkö (talk) 09:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

You will note the subtitle of the book is"The Paradox of Keeping-while-Giving." The whole book is about Kula and her engagement with Malinowski and Mauss. Its a good book, I would recommend it.

Parry or Weiner?

Is this supposed to be from Parry or from Weiner:

"To speak of a "gift economy" in a non-market society is to ignore the distinctive features of their exchange relationships, as the early debate between Malinowski and Mauss demonstrated"

Tpylkkö (talk) 10:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Weiner is cited, but Parry would agree (well, any anthropologist would).

Okay, because the way it was written seemed to indicate that either Parry or Weiner said it. Now that we know, the source can be verified by readers Tpylkkö (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Gift economy or gift exchange?

The title of this article is gift economy and, up until early February, it gave a single bolded synonym in the opening of the lede: gift culture. After the recent storm of edits, mostly by Schrauwers (talk · contribs), the lede now starts with gift economy but quickly blurs this with gift exchange. What we have now seems to be largely based on the writing of Marcel Mauss, from early in the last century, with some input from the writings of Parry and Malinowski. I am not an anthropologist, but I know enough about the gift economy to know that it is a vibrant, modern topic with books, articles and documentaries appearing currently exploring the relationship between successful gift economies - such as the open source software movement, Wikipedia, etc - and the woes of the present economic system. Tying this article down to dull and irrelevant 100 year old historic anthropology debates, while adding a picture of two wedding rings as an example from modern times, is not an improvement in my opinion. Where are Eisenstein, the Transition movement, Occupy, open source and the commons? Hidden away under 'Related concepts'. That's not good enough. While historical and formal academic background is useful, this is not a textbook for 'Anth 101', but is part of a living, modern encyclopedia. When Schrauwers has finished adding his or her textbooks, we are going to have to sort this article out to get some balance and life into it again, I think. --Nigelj (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I actually quite agree, and if you look at the case study section, you'll see that this material will be added.Schrauwers (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

In my view the lead needs work. It mentions irrelevant stuff and gives a very narrow academic anthropological view of the issue.Tpylkkö (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I was informed the lead should reflect the actual content currently in the article rather than what will be put there eventually. As the more current material is added (with proper citation!) the lead should reflect that. I am not sure why a century of academic scholarship is an issue. It adds a cross cultural, historical dimension to the topic. That is surely the goal of an encyclopedia with global reach?Schrauwers (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Yet, it should be according to wikipedia:lead as much as possible. Now it is not. I think parts of it should be moved elsewhere. Tpylkkö (talk) 07:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Inalienable possessions.

Could the paragraph under Inalienable possessions be moved to Gift economy#Property and alienability? Seems a bit redundant. Tpylkkö (talk) 07:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The section on property is about property, and sets up how property regimes can affect both intellectual property rights (i.e., the whole section in "related concepts" on IT) and the exchange of gifts, whereas the inalienable possession section is about a more restricted form of exchange activity.