Talk:Prosumer/Archives/2012

Critique

This article is a bunch of gibberish, to put it mildly. --Curve Ballistic 12:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I quite agree. The whole article is a load of twaddle. It should probably be deleted until it can be re-written by someone with at least a rudimentary grasp of English.

31.53.176.157 (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The article is badly off base, which is a shame because the underlying concept of the "prosumer" is extremely important to understanding what is going on in our economies. The concept that Toffler was arguing in The Third Wave, was that the Second Wave economies functioned by creating an unnatural breach between "consuming" and "producing" (in the first wave economies, we largely produced for ourselves what we needed to consume). He further argued that technologies and other changes would "heal" the breach, creating "prosumers." This is the fundamental force behind such contemporary phenomena such as YouTube, 3D printing, and so on. I'm not sure how best to fix the article - perhaps a complete rewrite? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.240.25.255 (talk) 13:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Merging with Prosumer Generated Content

The article Prosumer Generated Content will be little more than a (spammy) stub, and should be merged into Prosumer. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep separate Both has real possibility to develop. Why merge when they show separate growth potential? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge - it's not useful to have two articles on effectively the same topic. Terraxos (talk) 20:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Coined by Toffler

Perhaps, but it was before the Third Wave - see here for books discussing this concept before 1980 (yes, many mention Toffler).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You know

I would feel like a real moron if I ever uttered something as inane as "prosumer" to another human being. There are words for these matters. "Prosumer" is not one of them. 97.71.73.46 (talk) 08:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Please Don't Delete

I couldn't agree more with the criticisms... to the point that I'm contemplating trying to improve it myself.

The economic definition (a person or entity that is both a producer and a consumer) is a vital concept, whereas the "professional grade products" definition feels like a marketer's usurping of the term. My interest is in the former.

Hope you don't delete this article as it gives me a sort of "foil" to counter. I've done a good bit of writing over the years but only a couple of very minor attempts on Wikipedia. Will need a lot of feedback if I do it.

RobertC (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)