Donate Today! Help us help others.

Lynch Coaching


Sunday, October 14, 2012

Why Wikipedia is not an Academic Source

The following does not take into account the individual, artist, inventor or others protected by intellectual property, perferring to show only corporate ownership and greed. The ad is encoded into the Wikipedia file and is not an endorsement by this blog or the companies that host this blog. A true encyclopedia would stick much closer to the facts and provide as balanced a presentation as possible. Yet this is what is found when hou search Wikipedia under Intellectual Property as of 12-15-09. It is one example of many why Wikepedia is not an academic source and is not accepted as a source in most college work. The following is only part of the presentation in Wikepedia on Property Rights:

 Intellectual property

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Intellectual property (IP) is a number of distinct types of legal monopolies over creations of the mind, both artistic and commercial, and the corresponding fields of law.[1] Under intellectual property law, owners are granted certain exclusive rights to a variety of intangible assets, such as musical, literary, and artistic works; discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, symbols, and designs. Common types of intellectual property include copyrights, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights and trade secrets in some jurisdictions.
Although many of the legal principles governing intellectual property have evolved over centuries, it was not until the 19th century that the term intellectual property began to be used, and not until the late 20th century that it became commonplace in the United States.

Financial incentive

These exclusive rights allow owners of intellectual property to reap monopoly profits. These monopoly profits provide a financial incentive for the creation of intellectual property, and pay associated research and development costs. Some commentators, such as David Levine and Michele Boldrin, dispute this justification.

Economic growth

The legal monopoly granted by IP laws are credited with significant contributions toward economic growth. Economists estimate that two-thirds of the value of large businesses in the U.S. can be traced to intangible assets. "IP-intensive industries" are estimated to produce 72 percent more value added per employee than "non-IP-intensive industries". A joint research project of the WIPO and the United Nations University measuring the impact of IP systems on six Asian countries found "a positive correlation between the strengthening of the IP system and subsequent economic growth." 
However, correlation does not necessarily mean causation: given that the patent holders can freely relocate, the Nash equilibrium predicts they will obviously prefer operating in countries with strong IP laws. In some of the cases, the economic growth that comes with a stronger IP system is due to increase in stock capital from direct foreign investment.


Intellectual property rights are temporary state-enforced monopolies regarding use and expression of ideas and information.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I'll start with the End:

What does all the below have to do with the WIKI then you say not being considered Academic? Honestly, I might not know half the things about intellectual property I just found if it wasn't for the Wiki. While it may then be deemed a directory media, we don't count those peoples works academic because they didn't write the original works they are properly referencing? They didn't do any amount of work to find these citations or ideas? While we must take all with a grain of salt, there is a tremendous amount of proper citation and work put into making these pages for the most part. I guess a directory media gets no credit, so we should just throw them out the door. Who needs them, we can all find this information on our own if we looked, but what if I never asked, would anyone else, and if they didn't how would we all know?

Well as of being retrieved on 3/19/2012 9:15 PM, Intellectual Property looks a lot different then this, and is much longer.

Here is the Definition from WIPO ( World Intellectual Property Organization, I'd say they are a good candidate to say what is Intellectual Property and what isn't ) Intellectual Property WIPO.

Here it is defined by the US Government Intellectual Property USAGov. I'm slightly put off by "It is the ownership of dream, emotion that we can touch, see hear and feel.

There was a Geneva Declaration proposed to WIPO, it appears in 2004 from what I can tell, but I don't think much ever came from it, but I do feel this needs addressing overall. "Particular attention should be paid to the need to ensure that enforcement procedures are
fair and equitable and do not lend themselves to abusive practices by right holders that may
unduly restrain legitimate competition." Geneva Declaration

Thomas Jefferson, you know, that guy that is a founding father, wrote a letter to Isaac McPherson in regards to Intellectual Property and Ideas /Inventions "If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property." Letter from Thomas Jefferson

Ryan Clift
Com 101-4049