To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association—the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it....Thomas Jefferson. Socialism takes from one to provide for another (who may not be legitimately deserving - just lazy or unmotivated) on the basis of decisions made by a few who make distinctions on who "they" think should be deserving instead of who "the individual" may deem deserving. Do yourself a favor and read Fredrick Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom" (or at least the abridged version). He lived through both the Communist and Socialist (including the abusive Nazi regimes as well as others), so I would surmise he knows more than you or I (plus he was a Nobel Laureate).
That said, the karma pales in comparison to the serendipity and enjoyment of discussing anything with anyone. I've got Tim Maia playing in a tab!
Even so, I would have predicted Wikipedia to fail. Its success has modified my view of the robustness of altruistic systems. Funny that Jimmy Wales is an self-described 'Objectivist'. It's almost comical to see Harvard Business pick up on the altruism scent and say: "40%? Hey, we can profit from this!?" BTW, WTF Greenspan. Are you serious?
i.e. All evidence to the contrary is exceptional; all evidence that supports my belief is proof. IMHO, that's why people of this persuasion often reject scientific interpretation of data. Science doesn't respect the nuances necessary for making exceptions. :)