> It’s a virtuous cycle, no? If you are “lurking” then you are not contributing to the cycle but only benefiting from it. Not participating is a mistake, and failure.
Not necessarily. Your argument contains the premise that the choice is between lurking and contributing and indeed if that were the case then contributing is the more beneficial one and lurking should be discouraged. However the premise is false, because there is the third option of not participating at all.
Imagine a group of (say) ten creators, ten non-participants and zero lurkers. If one non-participant switches to being a lurker, the total amount of knowledge about (and enjoyment from) the thing in question will increase, while the enjoyment of the creators stays the same. The total amount of enjoyment has increased. It could perhaps increase even more if the newfound lurker would also create, but that is not always an option and the perfect is the enemy of the good.
> “ If one non-participant switches to being a lurker, the total amount of knowledge about (and enjoyment from) the thing in question will increase, while the enjoyment of the creators stays the same.”
I see what you’re doing here. If I signaled I was inviting an argument of this type, that was not my intention.
Not necessarily. Your argument contains the premise that the choice is between lurking and contributing and indeed if that were the case then contributing is the more beneficial one and lurking should be discouraged. However the premise is false, because there is the third option of not participating at all.
Imagine a group of (say) ten creators, ten non-participants and zero lurkers. If one non-participant switches to being a lurker, the total amount of knowledge about (and enjoyment from) the thing in question will increase, while the enjoyment of the creators stays the same. The total amount of enjoyment has increased. It could perhaps increase even more if the newfound lurker would also create, but that is not always an option and the perfect is the enemy of the good.