Wikipedia: The Wonderful Public Good

While I was reading Iliad for my Greek history class, I went to Wikipedia to get a rundown on a character, Menelaus. To do so, I went to a sourced, monitored, free, online encyclopedia, which I was told by my 3rd grade teacher that I should never, ever use. Sorry Ms. Lapinski. In the process, I turned from my $85 textbook to a free and expeditious resource, yet I didn't pay a penny.

With this in mind, I wondered how close Wikipedia is to a pure public good. The closer it is, the more of a cheapskate free-rider I am. Is Wikipedia non-rivalrous? Absolutely. By searching Menelaus on Wikipedia, I will never prevent another user from reading about Menelaus' rival, Paris. Is Wikipedia non-excludable? Based on its own format, yes. At its core, Wikipedia is open-source, meaning it would lose its very character by limiting its user population. I imagine it would have failed already without benefitting from the unlimited fact-checking and potential donor population. Furthermore, even when Wikipedia begs for money, it does so at the top of the page so you can still see your content.

Wikipedia seems very close to a perfect public good, so I must admit that I am one of many free-riders. Even so, Wikipedia stands the test of time, probably due to behavior that fits outside the free-rider problem. Many altruistic people donate freely, or voluntarily write entries, provide sources, and fact check others. One might argue that, since it resembles a pure public good, Wikipedia fails to meet the socially optimal allocation of resources, yet the fact remains that Wikipedia has come to dominate private encyclopedias. Optimal or not, it beats a $85 textbook.