Today, I am writing a fictional story which in fact could have happened.
The story is about two important and famous protagonists working in the same field. They both work on the same topic. It is an innovative idea with which you can earn money. Let us call the two persons Mr. Je and Mr. Hy.
Both of them write about their ideas in their blogs and develop new ideas in the sense of “sharing knowledge” and “improving wisdom by sharing it”, both by themselves and together.
Mr. Je finds some ideas in one of Mr. Hy’s posts exciting. Consequently, a dialogue between the two gets under way. The dialogue is happening in Mr. Hy’s blog in the form of comments on this post.
The result is a significant extra insight, including a valuable basis for a business model. In fact, the constructive, critical and supplementary comments by Mr. Je are to a huge extent responsible for the making said model seem realistic.
Mr. Hy utilizes the thus gained insight for his business, thereby successfully promoting his business model. However, he never tells Mr. Je any of this.
Instead, he removes the dialogue between himself and Mr. Je from his blog.
Mr. Je has no problem with the fact that Mr. Hy benefited from the shared dialogue for his business. This is quite ok. After all, it is why “sharing knowledge” and “open collaboration” have been invented. However, he would have found it nice to hear from Mry. Hy and perhaps receive a cooperation offer.
As a matter of facts, he is really annoyed about the removal of the dialogue!
Of course, the story is totally fictional. Any similarities between actual events or living or even dead persons – if they can be found – are totally coincidental
RMD
(Translated by EG)
P.S.
I took the picture from Wikipedia:
en:Henry Van der Weyde (1838-1924; London, England) – http://www.photography-museum.com/jekyll.html / Originally from en.wikipedia;
Loading ...