Collective goods require high includability, not merely non-excludability

Context

Many discussions of commons and public goods focus on excludability - whether access can be controlled. But [[f-xavier-olleros|Olleros]] makes a crucial distinction: truly successful collective goods aren't just non-excludable, they're highly includable. The system must actively welcome and reward participation, not just fail to prevent it.

Analysis

Non-Excludability: The Passive Quality

Non-excludability means access cannot be prevented:

• Radio broadcasts reach everyone in range
• Public parks are open to all
• Published research is available to readers
• This is about the absence of barriers

Includability: The Active Quality

Includability means the system is designed for participation:

• Contribution mechanisms are clear and accessible
• Community norms welcome newcomers
• Reward structures make participation meaningful
• Feedback shows how contributions matter
• This is about the presence of enablers

Key Examples:

Low includability despite non-excludability:

• Radio broadcasts: Anyone can listen, but there's no path to contribute
• Public parks: Open access, but limited ways to improve or shape them
• Static websites: Information is available but participation isn't invited

High includability combined with non-excludability:

• Wikipedia: Anyone can read (non-excludable) AND anyone can edit with clear guidelines, community support, and visible impact (highly includable)
• Open source projects: Code is public (non-excludable) AND contribution processes are documented, mentored, and celebrated (highly includable)
• TED platform: Videos are free (non-excludable) AND speakers are actively recruited, audiences engaged, translators welcomed (highly includable)

Supporting Evidence

From [[olleros-antirival-goods-2018|Olleros (2018)]]:

"The optimal way to manage a strongly antirival good is inclusiveness, perhaps to the point of subsidizing early users and penalizing deviants."

This suggests several strategies for maximizing includability:

Subsidizing Early Users:

• Lower barriers for newcomers
• Provide extra support and resources
• Celebrate and amplify early contributions
• Bootstrap [[network-effects|network effects]] by making initial participation rewarding

Active Design for Participation:

• Clear pathways from consumption to contribution
• Multiple levels of engagement (not just "all in" or "all out")
• Recognition systems that reward diverse contributions
• Community norms that welcome questions and learning

Penalizing Deviants:

• Not excluding people, but enforcing quality and community standards
• Reputation systems that make bad-faith participation costly
• Moderation that protects the inclusive environment
• Balance between openness and maintaining culture

Notes

Critical distinction for co-goods:

Simply open-sourcing designs (non-excludable) isn't enough. We must actively design for includability:

Low-barrier entry:

• Multiple ways to participate (design, feedback, purchasing, usage reporting)
• Clear documentation and learning resources
• Welcoming community culture
• Success stories that show impact of participation

Meaningful engagement:

• Visible connection between contribution and outcomes
• Recognition systems (XP, levels, reputation)
• Community events and shared rituals
• Tangible benefits from participation (discounts, early access, influence)

Progressive engagement:

• Start with easy contributions (wear the garment, report problems)
• Gradually enable deeper participation (suggest improvements, vote on designs)
• Ultimate contributions (create new designs, mentor newcomers)
• No gatekeeping, but natural progression through contribution

The goal: Create systems where people want to participate, not just systems where they can participate.

Design question: At each stage of the user journey, ask:

• "How do we make this more inclusive?" (not just "How do we make this accessible?")
• "What would make someone feel welcomed to contribute?" (not just "Can they technically contribute?")
• "How do we reward this participation?" (not just "Do we allow it?")