| Revision as of 06:47, 31 January 2013 editXerographica (talk | contribs)2,148 edits →What do the RS say?: defense of quote farms← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:13, 31 January 2013 edit undoArthur Rubin (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers130,168 edits →What do the RS say?: nonsenseNext edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| ::Well, I agree with N2E in that discussion. There's something here but it needs to be more precise, have reliable secondary sources, and not be just a quote farm.<span style="color:Blue">]</span><span style="color:Orange">]</span> 06:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC) | ::Well, I agree with N2E in that discussion. There's something here but it needs to be more precise, have reliable secondary sources, and not be just a quote farm.<span style="color:Blue">]</span><span style="color:Orange">]</span> 06:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :::Quote farms in no way shape or form hinder the development of article. They add value until an editor has the time/interest/knowledge to develop the article. In other words, they are better than nothing. Here's where I moved the quotes to... ]. I'd invite you to develop it there but I have the feeling you'd simply delete all the quotes and wait for somebody else to develop it. --] (]) 06:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC) | :::Quote farms in no way shape or form hinder the development of article. They add value until an editor has the time/interest/knowledge to develop the article. In other words, they are better than nothing. Here's where I moved the quotes to... ]. I'd invite you to develop it there but I have the feeling you'd simply delete all the quotes and wait for somebody else to develop it. --] (]) 06:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::::Quote farms in no way ''help'' the development of articles. Aside from usually being copyright violations, without ''some'' credible (not necessarily reliable) indication of a connection between the quote and the topic, they serve no purpose. — ] ] 07:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:13, 31 January 2013
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 15 December 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was redirect to Tragedy of the commons. |
What do the RS say?
The reliable sources do not support the redirect to tragedy of the commons. The only reason that this entry redirects to TOC is because two Value Destroying Editors (VDEs), Rubin and Rich, have absolutely no interest in reading RS. For proof of this fact please read this discussion on the TOC talk page. --Xerographica (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I think rent-seeking would be a more appropriate redirect. ToC is sort of related but one has to make a couple intermediate steps in the argument to link the two.Volunteer Marek 06:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- You're correct. But it's also discussed in public choice under the first section on special interests. Here's the background story... User_talk:Bwilkins#Concentrated_benefits_and_diffuse_costs --Xerographica (talk) 06:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I agree with N2E in that discussion. There's something here but it needs to be more precise, have reliable secondary sources, and not be just a quote farm.Volunteer Marek 06:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Quote farms in no way shape or form hinder the development of article. They add value until an editor has the time/interest/knowledge to develop the article. In other words, they are better than nothing. Here's where I moved the quotes to... User:Xerographica/Concentrated_benefits_and_diffuse_costs. I'd invite you to develop it there but I have the feeling you'd simply delete all the quotes and wait for somebody else to develop it. --Xerographica (talk) 06:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Quote farms in no way help the development of articles. Aside from usually being copyright violations, without some credible (not necessarily reliable) indication of a connection between the quote and the topic, they serve no purpose. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Quote farms in no way shape or form hinder the development of article. They add value until an editor has the time/interest/knowledge to develop the article. In other words, they are better than nothing. Here's where I moved the quotes to... User:Xerographica/Concentrated_benefits_and_diffuse_costs. I'd invite you to develop it there but I have the feeling you'd simply delete all the quotes and wait for somebody else to develop it. --Xerographica (talk) 06:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I agree with N2E in that discussion. There's something here but it needs to be more precise, have reliable secondary sources, and not be just a quote farm.Volunteer Marek 06:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)