WordPress’ Big “Tragedy of the Commons” Problem

I was sitting about 40 rows back when Matt Mullenweg took the stage at WordCamp 2024. He told us about his background in macroeconomics and then proceeded to read WordCamp US and Ecosystem Thinking as jazz music played in the background.

This wasn’t my first WordCamp, but I legitimately felt bad for first-timers. Imagine an awesome and uplifting week ending like the Payback scene in The Sum of All Fears:

A little awkward.

Leading up to this WordCamp, I had thought a lot about WordPress, open source, funding, and contributors. I’ve also discussed these topics relentlessly with WordPress users, contributors, and outsiders.

Matt’s “talk” triggered perhaps the most interesting insight of all, though. In his attacks on WP Engine, he referred to an economics concept called “Tragedy of the Commons.”

His argument was essentially this: If companies like WP Engine don’t “give back,” the commons are destined for ruin. WordPress is, of course, the commons in this metaphor.

There shouldn’t be any surface-level pushback to this concept. The Tragedy of the Commons is a classic economics lesson because it has played out time and time again across the globe.

So, Matt is technically right. If WordPress is “the commons,” and people don’t willingly contribute to pruning and developing it, then it’s destined for ruin.

The problem is that Matt is putting a massively important project, and our future, in the hands of a historically failed model.

Some of the smartest minds in economics have arrived at another obvious conclusion when tackling the Tragedy of the Commons problem: owned land is better cared for than public land because it benefits the private owner to protect and care for it.

It’s pretty simple, really. Unmitigated self-interest is often harmful, right? So why buy into a concept like “the commons” which actively promotes and encourages unmitigated self-interest?

Private ownership is the very thing that mitigates self-interest. If you’re worried about the commons trending toward ruin, you should buy it, protect it, and maintain it. That’s the real lesson of Tragedy of the Commons. The lesson isn’t, “If you’re worried about the commons trending toward ruin, beg people to help and threaten them if they don’t.”

WordPress isn’t as complicated as people make it seem. Software needs developers. Some developers are willing to donate their time and some developers are only willing to trade time for money. If you want consistency and efficiency, which I think we all do since we rely so heavily on the project, you need the money part.

The question is: can “owned” software still be open source?

It’s a simple answer. “Yes.”

Open source software can be owned and controlled by a single entity. Or, it can be community-driven. WordPress is awkwardly kind of both.

Automattic heavily controls WordPress, but doesn’t own it. Automattic makes money, but has opted to not monetize WordPress itself. Automattic is the main contributor, but there are community contributors as well.

To be clear, you can monetize WordPress without charging for its use. It can be free, open source, and protected from the fate of the commons without giving up any of its current advantages.

What people need to understand and accept is that the problems WordPress faces are self-inflicted. While these problems and complications are blamed on “the nature of open source software,” they’re really just the obvious result of all the decisions made up to this point.

If Matt is going to suggest WordPress is “the commons,” then he has to accept the reality that the commons is usually abused. WP Engine is under no moral or legal obligation to contribute back to the project and certainly not in any specific way.

If we want companies like WP Engine to contribute developer hours via Five for the Future, we have to find ways to convince them to do that. Why? Because that was the chosen model. Instead of ensuring consistent funding that doesn’t rely on pure altruism, it was decided that WordPress would survive or die based on the passing of a collection plate.

Matt has presumably attempted diplomacy multiple times in different ways over the years as he passed that collection plate around, but without great success when it comes to WP Engine.

The question now becomes, is public ridicule and shame a valid approach? And should this ridicule and shame get delivered in the closing talk at a WordCamp?

It’s certainly not immoral or unethical, so one has to decide if it’s desirable. At the end of the day, this is all personal preference and everyone will have their own preferences.

What’s my preference, you ask?

My preference is to avoid the problem in the first place. When you avoid using an undesirable model, you naturally avoid the undesirable consequences. A seemingly vindictive founder slicing and dicing one of his competitors at WordCamp US, to the rhythm of Wish, is one of those consequences.

So, I simply reject the historically failed concept of the commons and I recognize that something as valuable as WordPress should be driven by a proper funding model, a proper visionary, a consistent core development team, and consistent marketing.

What’s happening in WordPress right now is the sum of all our fears. What’s worse is that we opted into it. WordPress’ open source nature and the benefits of free use, data ownership, and data liberation don’t have to go away for the glaring problems to go away.

The next era of development in WordPress is being ushered in as we speak. Maybe Era 4 should also be the era where we usher in a properly funded and managed WordPress altogether.