OK, selfishness is probably a bit on the strong side semantically speaking, but I think that we can draw a definite line in the sand – especially when looking at successful and unsuccessful web services – which separates ‘pragmatism’ on the one hand and ‘social’ and ‘non-social’ altruism on the other.

1. Getting a blog: pragmatic (with possibly a hint of social altruism)
2. Commenting on Stephen’s blog: Social altruism (with possibly more than a hint of pragmatism)
3. Anonymously donating / supporting a blog: Non-social-altruism

With the exception of projects like Wikipedia – which to a degree writes it’s own rules – projects (like LORs) that are based on mostly (or only) 2 & 3 are doomed to failure.

The best thing to have is a blend… but I would suggest that the more you add to 1. the higher your fundamental chances of success.

Perhaps a better word ight be the ‘pragmatism’ of users.

For example: someone asks m a question in an email. Happens often enough. I pop online to ferret out an answer, and in so doing bounce across dozen websites.

My behaviour will exhibit the traits of ‘the selfish user’. I will want return for my attention; I will not want time and effort wasted,

But my act was inherently an unselfish act – I was trying to help someone else, for no return.

People are inherently pragmatic, even the idealists. They go with what works, they make choices on the basis of present need and interest, etc.

But this is *very* different from selfishness.

How do I know?

Because people, when accessing my site to attend to their own ‘selfish’ needs, are often very generous in ways they don’t have to be.

They leave comments, they send emails, they recommend the site to their friends – all things that have nothing to do with serving their own interests, but behaviors which are eminently practical.

‘Selfishness’ is a political philosophy, one that forms the essence of most conservative thought. It is not – contra the Conservatives – an essential attribute of human behaviour.