Talk:Network effect/Archives/2016

AC power plugs and sockets

Pacerier (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC): ❝

Should there be a section on AC power plugs and sockets?

❞

Benefits section, "Social media" vs "Peer-to-peer"

This paragraph deeply misunderstands the phrase peer-to-peer. Peer-to-peer refers to multiple computer systems interacting without a clear hierarchy or distinction among their roles:

Network effect is a benefit to society as a whole because it positively relates to and affects the Intellectual Commons, Property Rights, and Cultural Commons of the world. One form of network externality is social media, which is a peer-to-peer network ran by a privately held for profit business. Although the creation of a large network creates a barrier to entry according to Porters five forces and may prevent a few from creating a new form of P2P networking, it largely benefits society as whole and provides a new form of a common-pool resource solargely scalable that the entire world has the ability to use it. Although the barrier to entry may be high, there is no true form of monopoly in the P2P social sharing market. For example, Facebook holds a large stake in the P2P social sharing market, but it is not mutually exclusive, meaning users can have an account on Facebook and also have an account on Twitter. Furthermore, there becomes no true critical mass in this space due to the ability for technology and innovation to constantly adapt to different environments, market for underdeveloped countries to integrate with social sharing is unlimited. (emphasis is mine)

A private social network, for example Facebook or Google+, is not peer-to-peer. Instead, they follow the Client-server model, wherein the private company (Facebook, Google) uses dedicated infrastructure (servers) to provide the service (Facebook website, Google+ website) to users' web browsers (clients).

I think the paragraph is trying to use "peer" in reference to an end user.

Initially, I tried to fix the paragraph, but it is so fundamentally broken that I found no solution better than removing it entirely. Since I am an IP editor, I'm sure that such an edit would be mistaken for vandalism. Thus, instead of being reverted, I'm starting a discussion here.

128.112.139.195 (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Not just that paragraph, unfortunately. The whole Benefits section is unreferenced and smells like original research. I support removing it and starting over. ~KvnG 13:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I support rewriting this section (and much of the article) 118.200.53.190 (talk) 10:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

+1, please remove the entire Benefits section. It is FUNDAMENTALY FLAWED in several senses: its readability is poor, it misuses terms or art (e.g. "P2P"), it makes fundamentally untrue statements about intellectual property law. 23:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.7.155.119 (talk)

Dr. Zenou's comment on this article

Dr. Zenou has reviewed effect&oldid=719534141 this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

It gives a very partial view of the network literature in economics. Basically, this article defines networks are externalities and misses all the richness of network structure. For example, centrality measures (i.e. how central is a node in a network) are key in understanding economic behavior and it is not at all mentioned. Furthermore, this article only focuses on the industrial organization literature. However, there is a huge literature using networks in the labor market, in crime, in development economics, in financial economics, etc., which is not mentioned here. So this article gives a very very partial view of the literature on networks in economics and is really biased. For example, in the external links, it says: The economics of Networks: Nicholas Economides. This is not true. I would write: The economics of Networks: Matthew O. Jackson.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Zenou has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:

• Reference : Lindquist, Matthew & Zenou, Yves, 2014. "Key Players in Co-Offending Networks," CEPR Discussion Papers 9889, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Manenti's comment on this article

Dr. Manenti has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

I suggesto to add a paragraph after lock-in:

Excess momentum - Excess inertia Markets exhibiting network effects are often referred to as winner takes all markets, that is markets where a single technology rises to dominance and competing technologies are forced to a marginal position. The winning technology becomes the standard.

Standardization may be inefficient. In the literature, there are two forms of inefficiencies known as excess inertia and excess momentum:

1. excess inertia: when consumers, regardless of the availability of a new and socially more desirable technology, stick to an old and inferior standard due to the existing network benefits guaranteed by its large installed base of users;

2. excess momentum: when consumers switch to a new technology even though the old one is still socially more desirable.

In the first case, society is locked-into an inferior technology, even if better products are available; this is typical of markets exhibiting network effects as described previously. The second type of market failure goes exactly in the opposite direction: society switches to the new technology too quickly, even if the old one is still socially more efficient.

Reference:

Comino S. and Manenti F.M. (2014), Industrial Organisation of High-Technology Markets: The Internet and Information Technologies, Edward Elgar

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Manenti has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

• Reference : Fabio Maria Manenti & Ernesto Somma, 2008. "One-Way Compatibility, Two-Way Compatibility and Entry in Network Industries," "Marco Fanno" Working Papers 0068, Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche "Marco Fanno".

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 02:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)