I was in the midst of wikipedia-ing “Newfoundland and Labrador,” as young swingers in their twenties spend so much of their time doing, when I noticed a link at the top of the screen to a “personal appeal” from the founder of Wikipedia. I am not inclined to respond to these sorts of appeals, but when I finished reading his letter, I found myself doing something rather strange. I donated $5. I decided that if wikipedia is sufficiently ubiquitous in my life that I use it as a verb (as in, “for some reason, I spent the last half hour wikipedia-ing various cast members of Saved By the Bell”), then I should probably have the decency to cough up some bills to keep it running.
“George, are you just telling us this to put your own meager self-righteousness on display?”
Yes, but while I have your attention, let me also share a thought with you that occured to me. In his appeal, the founder mentions that over 400 million people visit Wikipedia or its sister sites every month. That means that, if everyone who uses “wiki” coughed up even a few cents every time they used the site, there would be more than enough funds to keep the operation going.
The problem is that, once people are used to receiving something for free, they are loathe to pay even a pittance for it. This is not a groundbreaking revelation. What is worth noting is how many things members of my generation are used to getting for free, not just articles about Lady Gaga and Tudor England, but music, movies, video games. These are not things that are actually free, in fact they often cost millions of dollars to make, but we experience them as such. For whatever reason, the difference between free and a few bucks in a gaping void in our minds.
That would make sense if we were Depression-era penny pinchers. We aren’t. We’re Recession-era Visa holders. We buy snuggies. We buy $5 cups of coffee. We are absolutely terrible with money. Yet, for some reason, we are unable to bring ourselves to give even the most meager amount to support a larger cause, even if our own personal benefit is readily apparent.
The larger question, which we will have to answer over the coming years (and by “coming years” I mean, like, tomorrow, so we don’t become Greece on Thursday) is how you govern people like that. How do you address an issue like social security?
Do you want to pay for Social Security? No.
Do you want to receive Social Security? Yes.
Do you love your parents and grandparents? Yes.
Do you want them to receive Social Security? Yes.
So, you want to contribute to her Social Security fund? No. Can’t we just borrow some money from China?
So, you’re okay with public debt? No.
What do we do if this is the nature of the modern American electorate? How do we meet the challenges we face if we have no concept of shared sacrifice?
I don’t know, but Wikipedia is still up, so conceivably other people are giving. I guess we’ll go from there.
