Difference between revisions of "Sharing"

From Sharewiki.org
Jump to: navigation, search
m
m
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{Sharing header links}}
 
{{Sharing header links}}
 +
  
  
Line 9: Line 10:
  
  
'''Sharing''' is creating through an agreement, a small environtment of freedom (i.e. let's share the pen) that could scale into a bigger (i.e. a distributed allocation of resources in a global scope) or into more abstract things ([[Shared Meaning]]) through the same exercise.   
+
'''Sharing''' is creating through an agreement, a small environtment of freedom (i.e. let's share the pen) that could scale into a bigger scope (i.e. a global distributed allocation of resources system) or even be a model for more abstract things ([[Shared Meaning]]) through the same practice.   
  
  
'''Sharing''' creates opportunities for mutual reciprocal care between people by levering the implicit authority there is in [[ownership]]. The ''owner'', by the declared fact of willing to share or being sharing ''his'' thing or his ownership rights, is admitting that is not going to use his force if his estated conditions for other people accessing (using) his thing are respected.  
+
Sharing is probably synonimous of [[Free barter]] because the owner needs an "acceptance" and the non owner not using the shareable thing for perjudicating him ''in exchange''. The difference between [[barter]] and free barter/sharing) is the needed absence of the ''quid pro quo'' in free barter / sharing ("acceptance" and "no harm" are part of the needed free federation needed standards for the agreement and are not considered exchangeable property subjects).
  
<blockquote>
 
The user who is not the owner would see as a selfinterest the respecting of those ''external conditions to him declared by the owner for using the thing''. Even just because those estated norms are more permissive than fully subjective norms (default restrictiveful ownership).
 
</blockquote>
 
  
 +
'''Sharing''' creates opportunities for mutual care between people by lowering the implicit authority there is in [[ownership]]. The ''owner'', by the declared fact of willing to share or being sharing ''his'' thing (or his ownership rights), is admitting that is not going to use his asking for royalties force.
  
'''Sharing''' is and it has been broadly used by a lot of different entities while its accurate defining it has not been much intended or deepened. Some autoritharian practices would force you to ''-share those values of destruction''. Most anarchists would tell: ''sharing is nice, isn't it?'' or ''-sharing is corrupted because relies in ownership, which relies in property, which relies in roman and previous authoritarian cultures''.
 
  
Here, at [[sharewiki]], we are going to rely in that wishfulism and are not going to draw a very strict line on what is or what is not sharing (at least for now), while at the same time you'll find pages like this one, the [[:Category:Sharespaces|sharespaces]] or specially the [[:Category:Sharefuls|sharefuls]] where the line is much more defined than with ''plain sharing'' .           
 
  
 +
'''Sharing''' is and it has been broadly used by a lot of different entities while its accurate defining has not been much intended or deepened. Some appeal to flattery by thinking that you are taking the beauty away of sharing (sharing is enough descriptive and shouldn't be defined for protecting subjectivism) when you trying to specify the sharing agreement. Some autoritharian practitioners would force you to ''-share those values of destruction''. Most anarchists would tell: ''sharing is nice, isn't it?'' or ''-sharing is corrupted because relies in ownership, which relies in property, which relies in roman and previous authoritarian cultures''.
  
Sharing is probably synonimous of [[Free barter]] because the owner needs an acceptance from the non owner and also needs the non owner not using the shareable thing for perjudicating him. The needed absence of ''quid pro quo'' (or the difference between [[barter]] and free barter/sharing), is that
+
Here, at [[sharewiki]], we are going to rely in that wishfulism and are not going to draw a very strict line on what is or what is not sharing (at least for now), while at the same time you'll find pages like this one, the [[:Category:Sharespaces|sharespaces]] or specially the [[:Category:Shareful Invitations|shareful invitations]] where the line is much more defined than with ''plain sharing''.           
  
 
<blockquote>
 
<blockquote>
Plain sharing is a specified protocol for other nonowners using the thing free of a royalties supplying precondition. Sharing is neither an offer for exchanging my private properties (acceptance and no harm are part of the free federation and not considered property subjects).      
+
The user who is not the owner would see as a selfinterest the respecting of those ''external conditions to him declared by the owner for using the thing''. Even just because those estated norms are more permissive than fully subjective norms (default restrictiveful ownership).  
 
</blockquote>
 
</blockquote>
 +
  
  

Revision as of 08:32, 24 January 2013

eng

cat

gal

por

spa



Sharing, most of the times, refers to the joint use of a resource. It can also mean other different things to different people such as:

  • to give
  • to have in common
  • to distribute


Sharing is creating through an agreement, a small environtment of freedom (i.e. let's share the pen) that could scale into a bigger scope (i.e. a global distributed allocation of resources system) or even be a model for more abstract things (Shared Meaning) through the same practice.


Sharing is probably synonimous of Free barter because the owner needs an "acceptance" and the non owner not using the shareable thing for perjudicating him in exchange. The difference between barter and free barter/sharing) is the needed absence of the quid pro quo in free barter / sharing ("acceptance" and "no harm" are part of the needed free federation needed standards for the agreement and are not considered exchangeable property subjects).


Sharing creates opportunities for mutual care between people by lowering the implicit authority there is in ownership. The owner, by the declared fact of willing to share or being sharing his thing (or his ownership rights), is admitting that is not going to use his asking for royalties force.


Sharing is and it has been broadly used by a lot of different entities while its accurate defining has not been much intended or deepened. Some appeal to flattery by thinking that you are taking the beauty away of sharing (sharing is enough descriptive and shouldn't be defined for protecting subjectivism) when you trying to specify the sharing agreement. Some autoritharian practitioners would force you to -share those values of destruction. Most anarchists would tell: sharing is nice, isn't it? or -sharing is corrupted because relies in ownership, which relies in property, which relies in roman and previous authoritarian cultures.

Here, at sharewiki, we are going to rely in that wishfulism and are not going to draw a very strict line on what is or what is not sharing (at least for now), while at the same time you'll find pages like this one, the sharespaces or specially the shareful invitations where the line is much more defined than with plain sharing.

The user who is not the owner would see as a selfinterest the respecting of those external conditions to him declared by the owner for using the thing. Even just because those estated norms are more permissive than fully subjective norms (default restrictiveful ownership).



The Basic Arguments for Sharing

Error creating thumbnail: File missing
  • Sharing adds meaningfulness to our lives
  • Sharing reduces barriers and help people to unfold their full potential
  • Sharing is an energy-efficient and extremely resourceful strategy for humans organizing
  • Sharing has the awkward trend to grow through the experiencing of it


Ways of Sharing

  • We could share very abundant goods or less abundant goods.
  • We could share skills by teaching/learning those.
  • Kids do naturally share before getting corrupted by adults interpretation of onership.
  • Free Software initiatives - wikis and lots of more models


There's not always somebody to share with, and you are right thinking that other people could take advantages on you when you are ready to share something. You should moderate your sharings. Just mind that tending and living in the consciousness of being open to share creates the possibility to change (y)our world from the first moment you let that spreading in yourself.

By opening your life to others (by creating spaces for others to join in on what you are doing), you can maximize development possibilities for your own doings. We could experience a more social life by adding (y)our bit(s) for a more abundant enjoying than the way proposed by the the capitalist scarcitism logic, which is just an appeal to fear fallacy.

Are you seeing it half full or half empty?


See also


External links

de:Teilen