Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:50, 31 January 2013

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 8 sections are present.

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Misplaced Pages and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

A page you started has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Legal plunder, Xerographica!

Misplaced Pages editor Kumioko just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Since this has been here for 2 years I am going to mark this as reviewed but it needs a lot of cleanup work.

To reply, leave a comment on Kumioko's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Dispute Resolution

I've been blocked for a total of three weeks now for describing the impact that other editors have on the content. Here's one, of many, examples of what I'm talking about.

8 Jan: Specifico removed content from the entry on demonstrated preference

8 Jan: I undid his edit and posted the following on the talk page...

BEFORE you make a substantial edit to this article...in order for your edit to actually be constructive...you have to actually understand the concept. In order to actually understand the concept you have to read the debate between Buchanan and Samuelson as Maricano relates in this paper... Why markets do not fail. Buchanan on voluntary cooperation and externalities. Once you've read that...then please read Ginsburg's and Wright's paper...Behavioral Law and Economics: Its Origins, Fatal Flaws, and Implications for Liberty. Then, and only then, can we have a constructive discussion, based on RS, on how to improve this entry. --Xerographica (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

15 Jan: Specifico makes the same edit that he made before.

Unfortunately, I'm not quite sure how to describe this situation in a way that admins will not consider to be a personal attack on another editor. So I'd very much appreciate it if all you admins who have blocked me...or supported the blocks...would make the effort to articulate exactly how you would describe this situation when requesting dispute resolution. You are all clearly willing to block me to protect other editors...now let's see how much of an effort you are willing to make to help me protect the content. --Xerographica (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. It is almost snide for you to repost the remark you made on the Demonstrated preference talk page. Why? At least two reasons come to mind for me. 1. That talk page, not your own, is the proper forum to discuss how Buchanan, Samuelson, Marcano, Ginsburg, Wright, et al pertain to the article. But more importantly, 2., you repeat, verbatim, the personal attack on SPECIFICO by alleging that s/he does not understand the concept or has not read the material. Why bring this up again, a week later? The only reason that I can see is that you wish to complain about another editor -- not that you wish to improve that article. This stuff about administrators not articulating exactly how to request a dispute resolution, and your implying an unwillingness on their part to help you protect the content is a sham. You are not being clever or helpful in reposting that stuff. Please drop the WP:STICK. You are only beating yourself with it. S. Rich (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Do his edits reflect what the reliable sources say about the concept? --Xerographica (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Xerographica, you are missing the point. My comment is not about "his edits". They have nothing to do with what you are doing. "His edits" may or may not be constructive, but when you refer to any other editor personally in terms of not reading or not understanding you are being disruptive. You could say "such-and-such edit is incorrect because the RS says this-and-that." Such commentary is welcome. But when you repeat the accusation that so-and-so does not understand something or has not read something, you are commenting about the editor personally. Xerographica, your behavior got you into trouble. You must look at your behavior and decide if you'd like to contribute to WP without making these unnecessary, unproductive, disparaging personal remarks.--S. Rich (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• I agree it would be helpful not to return to old personal attacks (even referring to reactions to them), but I also see some value in helping to answer your query which might help to move everyone on to some constructive content creation. So on the query itself - what about that particular edit do you find objectionable? I can't see a significant change to the text itself (except for the second half of the first line) - most of that edit seems to be manual of style stuff like moving a bare link to an inline citation and adding a linkfarm tag. I wonder if you meant this edit, before it, that actually removed some content? For content disputes (which is what this would be without the PAs), you could start a request for comment on the article talk page. That way, WP:CONSENSUS can be developed for the inclusion/exclusion of particular material and sources can be fully examined. Stalwart111 23:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The edit that you linked to is the one that I'm referring to. He removed what a Nobel Prize winning economist said about the concept. Regarding request for comments...isn't what I posted on the talk page a request for comments? Wasn't that a request that reliable sources be fully examined? I requested comments...none were offered...yet the editor persisted with his removal of content. What were his edits based on though? Nothing that I've read in the RS support his edits...and he hasn't offered any new RS to support his removal of relevant and sourced content. According to jpgordon...numerous people have told me to start with dispute resolution. Given that my own characterizations of the dispute have been considered to be personal attacks on other editors...how would you characterize my dispute? --Xerographica (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, it was a request for comments in the broad sense, but it was more a response to a specific edit. What I'm talking about is the formal process, Request For Comments - WP:RFC. This is where you place a specific template on the talk page and uninvolved editors are encouraged to come to that talk page, have a look at the discussion/suggestions and give their opinion. It can then be formally closed by an uninvolved admin with a specific recommendation/decision/suggestion (much like WP:AFD). But I would again caution that these decisions are based on WP:CONSENSUS (also like AFD and almost everything else on WP).

I'm not excited about getting involved in the actual content dispute but I will say, you would probably need to do more work to find reliable sources to support what you would like to include in the article. www.daviddfriedman.com, for example, is clearly self-published with no editorial oversight - it's just some guy's blog-style personal website. Nowhere near a "reliable source". The material would also need to be presented in a far less "academic" manner (the term "non-encyclopedic" was used). While it might make people feel "clever" to include material beyond the comprehension of most ordinary people, it is important to remember we are building an encyclopaedia. Our aim is to present (sometimes very complex) material in a way that is useful to everyday readers. You prove nothing by writing about a complex concept in a complex way. You will create useful, readable content by presenting a complex concept in a simple way. How are the sentences, "They confront genuine choices, and the sequence of decisions taken may be conceptualized, ex post (after the choices), in terms of "as if" functions that are maximized. But these "as if" functions are, themselves, generated in the choosing process, not separately from such process", of any real value? I "get it" but I don't get it. Surely, you could present that in a simpler way while appropriately citing relevant references that explain it in a far more complex way. Simply saying, "it's complex" and "you don't get it; not my problem" is a bit of a cop-out, to be perfectly frank. It's Misplaced Pages, not Wikinomics, yeah? Stalwart111 01:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

That said, we do have Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Economics (I see you are a member) with almost 200 people who try to make a habit of creating economics-related content in an acceptably encyclopaedic way. If you know what you want to say but you're hitting a wall of opposing editors because of how you're saying it (and then how you respond to it), you could try asking a few of them to pitch in and help copy-edit the articles. Stalwart111 02:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Well said, Stalwart. Very well said. For me the rub is any response which is directed towards the individual editors, even tangentially. Xerographica, you can and should make valuable contributions. But please remember that anyone can edit this encyclopedia and you must cooperate with the community. That means your edits are subject to removal or revision. If your edits are revised or removed, please feel free to defend the edits. (Making comments about other editors will not work.) And please note that I will not stand by and let any comment personal attack on a fellow editor -- even if roundabout or subtle -- go unnoticed and tagged with an appropriate notice. --S. Rich (talk) 03:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Stalwart, what you posted on my page, is what should have been posted on the demonstrated preference talk page, before massive amounts of relevant content was removed. That is the kind of discussion that should have occurred. Regarding Buchanan's quote...it could certainly be replaced with an excellent paraphrase...but replacing it with nothing is definitely not a valuable contribution. My editing strategy can be summarized like so..."In the meantime...this is better than nothing". If you, or anybody else, wants to DIY and paraphrase a quote...then great. But until that happens...the quote is a priceless piece of partial knowledge. Regarding David D. Friedman...he's a well respected economist. His quote, along with the others, are pieces of the puzzle which help people see the picture. We don't help people see the picture by removing pieces of the puzzle...we help them by adding more/better pieces.

Rich, imagine if you had spent as much effort reading about concentrated benefits and diffuse costs as you have spent on me. Please do us both a favor and focus on RS. Do it long enough and you might take issue with editors who do not. --Xerographica (talk) 06:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, you were on a roll until that last bit. Hmm. Anyway, yes, the discussion can be had on that talk page. I agree that something is better than nothing, but unsourced something (or unreliably sourced somethings) can be deleted. Yes, there should then be a subsequent discussion and there were notes left on the talk page but that got sidetracked by other issues (see pink boxes above). Anyway, suggest you wait out your block and then start a civilised conversation there about what should/shouldn't be included. I still think a formal RFC (fresh eyes) would help. And remember WP:FOC... Stalwart111 07:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is a suggestion to enhance Friedman's traction on WP -- improve the citations for his books. Look at on WorldCat. He's got stuff published by the University of Princeton. Use * {{cite book}} and add data like ISBNs and OCLC numbers that are missing. The cite book template is missing a OCLC parameter. But if you add "|oclc=123456789" to the template it will show up. Friedman's homepage is flaky. Don't use it. Just the books and articles that librarians have seen fit to stock on their shelves. --S. Rich (talk) 07:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Technically, David Friedman being a recognized expert, his home page is usable, except in WP:BLP contexts. But books would be better. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I just reviewed David Friedman's CV, publications on various topics and the publishers of his work in economics. I am not convinced he is RS on economic theory.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

You removed both Buchanan and Friedman. Would you care to share which economists, besides Rothbard, you do consider to be RS on economic theory? --Xerographica (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

You did not tie any of the material together into a narrative about a well-defined theory. I didn't voice any opinion about Rothbard or this theory. However, the only fact we currently can document is that Rothbard made that statement and coined the term Demonstrated Preference. Out of respect to you I left that as a starting point since it appears that you wish to attempt to craft an article on the topic. My personal opinion is that it's neither well-defined nor notable and that it doesn't merit its own article or even a mention in the Revealed Preference article. However I'd be pleased to see you and others prove me wrong, but only with a well-crafted substantive article that observes WP standards and policies. The material I deleted does not point in that direction, in my view.SPECIFICO 20:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

Based on your personal opinion I now know two things: you do not believe that Friedman is a RS on economic theory and you do not believe that demonstrated preference is a notable concept. My question is...why didn't you answer my question? Maybe you missed it? If so, let me ask you again. Which economists do you consider to be RS's on economic theory? --Xerographica (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

There are hundreds. I don't understand the relevance of that fact to the issue we are discussing here. I welcome constructive discussion, but I sense that you're angry and resentful and my view is that you can resolve that by contributing well-sourced relevant edits which conform to WP policy.SPECIFICO 20:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

If there are hundreds then it should be really easy for you to list a dozen. How could it not be relevant? You're the one who said that Friedman is not a RS on economic theory. So please share a dozen economists who you do believe to be RS's on economic theory. --Xerographica (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• To be frank (again - gee this Frank guy is getting a work-out!), that's probably not a worthwhile exercise. With regard to sources, it's generally not the individuals that we consider WP:RS, but the publication - a combination of author, publisher, context and content. A person who is a reliable source of information (generally, like a doctor in a specific field of medicine) might be an "RS" when he or she is published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Not so much if he or she just posts something to Twitter or Facebook. Likewise, if the person is a noted podiatrist but is talking about brain surgery; he or she would likely be a better "source" than me, but not better than, say, the late William Williams Keen. Yeah? So Friedman might be an appropriate academic to quote, generally, but we still need for his work to be available in a reliable source. He isn't a walking, talking, tweeting RS. We also need to establish if the particular source in question is considered a reliable source of information with regard to that particular theory/concept. I can tell you right now that the Wall Street Journal would fit into an arbitrary list of "general RS for economics" but an advertisement from their classifieds section ("but it's published in the WSJ!!") would not be considered a reliable source for Price-based selling or even Classified advertising. An article analysing either of those things published by the editorial staff of the WSJ would be. Make sense? I'm not suggesting that was the case here, but we need to consider all aspects when sourcing. Stalwart111 23:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Moreover, if this topic is ever to become more than a stub, the challenge is to find reliable source citations that speak to and explain this topic. Not related topics or ruminations, but this theory per se. That task is left to those who, like X, believe that such sources exist, find the topic is noteworthy, and are willing to expend the effort to contribute here.SPECIFICO 23:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

Setting aside the issue of reliability/notability...if Friedman's quote is not related to demonstrated preference, then what topic would you say that it falls under?

Economics Joke #l: Two economists walked past a Porsche showroom. One of them pointed at a shiny car in the window and said, "I want that." "Obviously not," the other replied. - David D. Friedman, How Economists Think

--Xerographica (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Stalwart, regarding reliable sources...I linked to Friedman's website...but that's because that's where he's made his textbook available for anybody to read. So the actual source is a published economics textbook. Given that our goal here is to help readers understand complex topics...if a textbook is available online, then why not link them to it? --Xerographica (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

On the joke - I don't think anyone is suggesting it relates to something else or that it doesn't relate to this. I think the suggestion is that a joke (without explanation, especially) is not the best way to present factual encyclopaedic information about economics. Surely we can summarise what Friedman is saying without flying too close to the WP:OR sun, or just find a better Friedman example.

On the website - we need to be careful of textbooks. There can often be some WP:HOWTO concern though obviously less-so for the theoretical analysis-type topics than for instructional topics. Break-outs with analysis, citations, case studies, etc can help with that. There's no need for the source to be online. If you can demonstrate that what has been posted on his site is just a re-print of previously published works then that would help. Obviously if you can cite the original publication, that's even better. For example, plenty of his books are online. I wouldn't build a whole article on quotes/citations from one guy, but all of these would be better for citing him than his own website, I would think, if they analyse the concept in question. Stalwart111 00:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, there is no indication whatsoever that Friedman cares about Rothbard's demonstrated preference. Friedman inserts this inscrutable one-liner under the subject "how economists think." He does use the term "Revealed Preference" but of course that would suggest Mr. X should have inserted his one-liner on that article rather than start a new one. Furthermore, Friedman's so-called text is published by an outfit with no academic credentials. It looks more like "Economics for Dummies" than a RS academic imprint.SPECIFICO 01:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

SPECIFICO, the article on revealed preference is dedicated to Samuelson's specific theory. Friedman was not discussing Samuelson's theory...he was discussing the general concept of actions revealing values. Rothbard perhaps coined the term "demonstrated preference" but he certainly did not invent the concept of actions speaking louder than words. Other far more notable economists have written as much, if not more, on the topic. We're not editing a dictionary here. Encyclopedia entries are dedicated to concepts...not words. As I've said to way too many editors, please thoroughly research a topic BEFORE you edit it. If you're not willing to the make the effort to read the RS's...then your edits will not be constructive. --Xerographica (talk) 02:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Stalwart, again though, the joke is a puzzle piece. In the meantime...it's better than nothing. There's a reason why he refers to it as "Economics Joke #1". It's "funny" because economics is all about actions speak louder than words. You said Buchanan's quote was too complex...and now you're saying that Friedman's quote isn't encyclopedic enough. Sure, you're probably right, but again, in the meantime, it's better than just Rothbard's passage. For some reason SPECIFICO wants to give all the credit to Rothbard when as Friedman stated, it's "Economics Joke #1". People say one thing, and they do another. Economics isn't based on words, it's based on actions. That's because each action sacrifices all the other possible actions. This is the opportunity cost concept.

Let's try a practical example. I can say, "what would really help get you up to speed is this excellent historical perspective on public goods." You can respond, "I don't have the time." And that would be funny because you DO have the time. You're just choosing to spend it on more important priorities. You're demonstrating your preference.

Why is this so important? Because economists believe that your true preferences/values are required to determine the optimal supply of public goods. And because it's your actions which reveal your values...we would only be able to discern your valuation of national defense by giving you the opportunity to put your money where your mouth is. Unfortunately, because national defense is a collective good...you would still derive the benefit from this good even if you didn't contribute any money to it. This is the free-rider problem. The solution is compulsion...you're forced to pay taxes. But this still leaves the problem of determining the optimal supply of public goods...the preference revelation problem.

Samuelson based his revealed preference on some heavy assumptions. The quote by Buchanan

Individuals do not act so as to maximize utilities described in independently existing functions. They confront genuine choices, and the sequence of decisions taken may be conceptualized, ex post (after the choices), in terms of "as if" functions that are maximized. But these "as if" functions are, themselves, generated in the choosing process, not separately from such process. - James M. Buchanan, Order Defined in the Process of its Emergence

and this quote by Botti and Iyengar...

Kahn and Baron’s (1995) results represent additional evidence in support of psychologists’ assertion that contrary to rational choice theory, people do not always hold stable and clearly ordered preferences that are simply retrieved at the moment of the choice. On the contrary, according to psychology research, most of the time, people do not know their preferences before their decision-making task, but they construct them on the spot during the decision process; therefore, preferences are subject to contextual influences (Feldman and Lynch 1988; Payne, Bettman, and Johnson 1993). - Simona Botti and Sheena S. Iyengar, The Dark Side of Choice

...argue against Samuelson's assumptions. Your preferences are not given. They reveal your values...but only after you make a choice.

So for the past 50 or so years...many economists have tried to come up with mechanisms to get you to reveal your true preferences for public goods. Again, because without your true preferences (aka demand) there is no real accurate way to determine the optimal supply of public goods. There's a ton of scholarly articles on the topic...and it's fundamentally important for understanding the theoretical basis for our current system of public finance. Unfortunately, nobody else has demonstrated a preference for this topic. Like I said, that historical perspective on public goods provides an excellent overview of the topic. It would be nice, for once, to have another editor to discuss reliable sources with. --Xerographica (talk) 02:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

SOUNDS as if there's no demonstrated preference for this article, so it's not a public good.SPECIFICO 03:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. "As I've said to way too many editors, please thoroughly research a topic BEFORE you edit it. If you're not willing to the make the effort to read the RS's...then your edits will not be constructive." This sort of remark is unneeded and disruptive. As I have said, I will make remarks about the comments you make regarding individual editors. Please, please, please confine your remarks to the edits and articles -- not the editors. S. Rich (talk) 02:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

TO SPECIFICO: WRT "Friedman's so-called text". Are you referring to Price Theory: An Intermediate Text? I see it is shelved in some 308 libraries -- OCLC 644369928 . In my neighborhood the 11 nearest are college and university libraries (within 100 miles). And it has 600+ pages. --S. Rich (talk) 02:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Srich, you forget. I am an Austrian. I don't put much stock in bare statistical inference, and in this case I assure you, neither should anyone else.SPECIFICO 03:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

Crux of the problem?

The crux of problem as I see it (stripping it back to bare bones) is that you understand these theories and have a particular view of them (after x years of research/study/whatever) but the theories themselves are not supported by significant coverage to the point where they are considered notable here on WP. That doesn't make them wrong (they might well be right or even just plain common sense), it just makes them unsuitable for Misplaced Pages as article subjects. The problem seems to be that to come to the same conclusion as Rothbard (in the same words as Rothbard), a bunch of related ideas need to be synthed together to make a cohesive whole. People might understand Rothbard, they might agree with Rothbard and they might have said things that you understand to be consistent with Rothbard's specific and named theories. But saying generally the same thing as Rothbard isn't the same as giving coverage to Rothbard's theory, which is what we need for something to be included here. We need coverage of that theory specifically. I know it's frustrating (I get that), but Misplaced Pages isn't really the place for abstract concepts, complex theories (or even some simple ones), new ideas or out-of-the-box thinking. It's a repository for widely accepted "facts" (and a few that aren't) that have received widespread coverage in mainstream media (basically). If this hasn't, then you're always going to struggle with it here. Stalwart111 03:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Deja vu...here's what Rich wrote above (Word to the wise)...

Same idea applies with Concentrated benefits and diffuse costs. Only 5 of the 13 quotes uses the term "concentrated benefits". Take Boaz for example -- we don't learn exactly the context in which he uses it because we don't know what "this problem" (Boaz's term) is. What follows are his examples to illustrate the phrase, but we are left hanging. It would be far better to use the Boaz material, refined into a concise paraphrase, in other articles which deal with "the problem" he referring to. (Perhaps these sources could be used in the article about special interests.) But when you take the term (or phrase) and endeavor to say that the other 8 sources were talking about concentrated benefits/diffuse costs, you are engaging in improper WP:SYN.

Rubin nominated the article for deletion and it was redirected to tragedy of the commons. Afterwards, an economics professor posted a section on Bwilkins's talk page asking why the notable concept was removed from Misplaced Pages.

The very idea of Misplaced Pages was inspired by an essay written by a Nobel Prize winning economist. Can you name the economist?

The crux of the problem sure might be that these concepts are not covered by mainstream media. But they certainly have received sufficient scholarly coverage to be included in Misplaced Pages. Now, the crux of this problem right here right now doesn't have anything to do with me. Unfortunately, I can't speak frankly regarding the problem. But feel free to review my blocks for my frank description of the actual problem. Speaking of which...did you read the reliable source that I highly recommended that you read? --Xerographica (talk) 07:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, yeah, unfortunately that will likely be the response from most regular editors here because that's how WP works. WP has very strict rules about original research and that frustrates a good many potential contributors, academics chief among them. Often because they have dedicated their lives to the distribution of knowledge and feel the things they teach in classes and in the community should be taught to all. That academic's comments are not unique; "the concept is notable, I teach it and it exists". But that is different to WP:N. And they won't help at AFD. Misplaced Pages, essentially, is about the distribution of verifiable information, not "knowledge". People with expertise in non-mainstream topic areas regularly make the same complaints you have, and in many cases they have merit. But they will not change how WP works. Obscure 80's punk rock outfits, skateboarders (I'm a member of WP:SKATE), Japanese pop culture, Yemeni politicians and break-through economic theories all miss out because they aren't covered by mainstream media. Does that suck? Sure. But it is what it is.

Unless you can produce some sources that refer to the theory in the same terms as it's creator, you're going to run into trouble. And I don't just mean sources that talk about similar things that we "could" conclude are the same. Stalwart111 08:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Is Platycerium superbum covered by mainstream media? My friend wrote the definitive book on ferns. She could easily see the differences between various species of ferns. Platyceriums were her specialty...but most of them looked the same to me. Why did they look the same to me? Because, unlike my friend, I did not have the training, knowledge or expertise to identify the differences. That's why, if somebody wanted to argue that Platycerium superbum and Platycerium grande are the same species...I'd stay out of the debate. We all have our own areas of expertise...which is known, in economic terms, as the division of labor. So when it comes to economic content, the only people I should have trouble with are the editors who know about economics. Unfortunately, this has not been the case.

I asked you whether you knew which economist deserves the most credit for providing the conceptual basis for Misplaced Pages. From the entry of the founder of Misplaced Pages...Jimmy Wales...

Wales cites Austrian School economist Friedrich Hayek's essay "The Use of Knowledge in Society", which he read as an undergraduate, as "central" to his thinking about "how to manage the Misplaced Pages project". Hayek argued that information is decentralized – that each individual only knows a small fraction of what is known collectively – and that as a result, decisions are best made by those with local knowledge rather than by a central authority.

Does it interest you or Rich or Rubin or SPECIFICO to read the essay which inspired Misplaced Pages? Here's the essay right here...The Use of Knowledge in Society. There's absolutely no cost to read it. However, there is an opportunity cost. It will require your time...time that you could spend doing other things that you also value. Therefore, only you can know the opportunity cost. Only you can know whether it's worth it. That's why your decision...the course of action that you will choose...will demonstrate your true preferences/values and influence how society's limited resources are used.

Is it important for you to understand what determines how society's limited resources are used? Does it matter to you if there's a shortage of skateboards or Japanese Punk bands but a surplus of Platyceriums? Does it matter to you if there's a shortage of public healthcare but a surplus of national defense? These things matter to me, which is why I want to contribute to the entries that help explain the relevant economic concepts. If these things matter to you too...then great. To say that I'd love a hand would be an understatement. There's far more scholarly material than I could hope to adequately cover in my lifetime. But if you have other priorities...then I'll understand that too. How could I not? It's the opportunity cost concept...my favorite concept. --Xerographica (talk) 10:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Just for fun, it has indeed been covered in mainstream media (a passing mention) but I understand your question was rhetorical. Ha ha. Again, I understand your point and I respect your opinion but we're not expected to understand the differences between Platycerium superbum and Platycerium grande. If reliable sources say they are different then that's what we go with, even if your mate suggested otherwise (unless he does it in an RS). In fact, it can be helpful to have no prior understanding of the subject, given the way WP operates. If we're just regurgitating what RS say, what's the point of bringing expertise here? A general interest will do. WP:EXPERT might be of interest, in that regard. I'm glad you want to contribute to economics articles, but doing so in a manner that quite a few people have told you is contrary to the way things are done here will likely waste your time. There's an opportunity cost lesson there too. You can choose to ignore the advice and continue to try to add things in the face of mounting opposition, but what does that achieve? Or you can accept that WP has many flaws (hey, let's face it, WP:WINARS), you can contribute in a collegial way (without taking it too seriously) and enjoy your time editing and contributing. Surely being stuck on your talk page teaching me about economics (and stag horns) is a waste of you time... Stalwart111 11:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

That "mainstream" media source just mentioned Platycerium...not Platycerium superbum. Why am I stuck on my talk page? Well...I'm here because I warned other editors that their edits were disruptive. Why would I have a problem if their edits were constructive?

Here's a simple exercise. I recently found this reliable source...The influence of Knut Wicksell on Richard Musgrave and James Buchanan by Bernd Hansjürgens. Go to the Misplaced Pages entry that I created for the benefit principle and add it to the list of references. That would be a constructive edit. Why would I have an issue with constructive edits? If, however, you removed a reference from the benefit principle...then I would consider your edit to be disruptive...assuming of course that you were unable to adequately defend your edit.

Here's another simple exercise. Look over the references that I added to the entry I created for club theory. One reference should quickly grab your attention. You can be certain that Rich and Rubin saw that I created that entry. So how come they didn't notice that "reliable" source? Would it be disruptive if you were to remove it? Perhaps a bit...it's arguably relevant...but it certainly wouldn't be worth being blocked over.

How disruptive would an another editor's edits have to be for you to risk being blocked for a week?

One last simple exercise. Nearly a week ago somebody vandalized the entry on opportunity cost. It's not major vandalism...but obviously I'm the only active editor who is interested enough in a fundamentally important economic concept to be watching that entry. But if you had been watching that entry then it would have been easy for you to spot the vandalism. But that vandalism is not the problem here on Misplaced Pages. The problem is the stuff that other editors cannot easily identify as vandalism.

If I make this much effort to protest other editors' edits...then you can be certain that it's not for minor issues. It's worth the sacrifice of my time to protest. --Xerographica (talk) 12:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

And it is certainly your right to continue protesting, as long as you follow a few basic rules when doing so. The stag horn "reference", by the way, was an attempt at humour. My point was that stag horns had been mentioned in the news. Anyway... moving on. I don't think it's accurate to say that you are stuck here because you "warned" other editors they were being disruptive. You're stuck here because you suggested that other editors were incompetent. "Wilfully" so, I think was the suggestion. You've heard (a few times) what other editors (and a few admins) think you should have done instead. I think you have the capacity to contribute productively, provided you heed their suggestions. And to be clear - you don't have to like the suggestions, it's just not a particularly productive use of your time to ignore them. And I can guarantee (having now conversed with you at length), you can achieve what you want to achieve while staying "within the lines". Stalwart111 22:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Staghorn ferns are no joking matter. I'm kidding. Regarding my blocks...the first time I said that the editors were incompetent and the second time I said that they were "willfully ignoring" reliable sources. In both cases I was warning them that their edits were highly disruptive because they were not based on RS. I was blocked for a total of three weeks for my disruptive behavior but the admins didn't even see fit to give the editors' a warning for their disruptive behavior. Honestly though, I'm still not quite clear where the lines are. If you consistently make edits that are not based on RS...is it considered a personal attack if I say that you consistently make edits that are not based on RS? At least one admin said that I should have initiated dispute resolution. So once I'm unblocked I'll initiate a dispute resolution over concentrated benefits and diffuse costs. It's ridiculous that it redirects to tragedy of the commons. In other words, the redirect is not at all supported by RS. The most logical redirect, which would still ignore numerous reliable sources supporting the notability of the concept, would be to public choice. The term is actually used in the entry on public choice. I wonder why none of the involved editors realized that? Oh yeah, I know why. But I'm not going to say because it would be construed as a personal attack. --Xerographica (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

They most certainly are not. But for fun, challenge accepted; take a look at Platycerium superbum now. The "line" is pretty simple really, though it is complicated by additional rules, regulations, precedents, etc. Personal attacks and/or harassment (in terms of actionable action) trump everything else. Consideration of everything else stops. Which is why, as I said above, admins will ignore the back-and-forth of a content dispute (no matter how meritorious) and block those who deal with content disputes by personally attacking others. It's like a golden goal in overtime, but an own goal. It doesn't matter how right or wrong you were about the content, you became "wrong" when you answered an allegedly disruptive edit with a personal attack. That aside, you would need to demonstrate that an edit was disruptive (he claims clean-up of encyclopaedic content / you claim disruptive editing) before a warning could be issued anyway (obvious vandalism aside). This is done by starting an RFC, establishing consensus and then progressing action against editors who edit against that consensus. Edits are not necessarily disruptive because another editor thinks they are. The general rule to follow is... don't talk about other people. Ever. Ever. Ever. Talk about the content of their edits. "That's not a constructive edit" as opposed to "he's an incompetent editor". "This has been established by RS" instead of "you don't know how to read RS" . A simple change in prose will see you move on from all of this fairly quickly, I think. Stalwart111 00:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Challenge accepted? Errr...when, exactly, did I offer you the challenge to improve the entry on Platycerium superbum? LOL. Don't get me wrong...the entry looks really great...but of all the challenges that I could and would have wanted to give you...would I really challenge you to do that? No no no...you challenged yourself and accepted your own challenge. Misplaced Pages works because our autonomy allows us to prioritize which entries we work on. Logically we try and get the most bang for our buck.

One challenge would be to explain to SPECIFICO that Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary...

Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc., whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meanings, usage and history.

But a REAL challenge would be to develop the entry on preference revelation.

Regarding personal attacks...my comments on other editors' behavior strictly focused on how their behavior affected the content. That's why none of the editors was able to copy anything from the Misplaced Pages entry that was specifically relevant to my behavior. Telling another editor that they have body odor would be a personal attack because it has absolutely no relevance to the content. Telling another editor that they are editing outside their area of expertise has everything to do with the content. Telling another editor that their edits are not based on reliable sources has everything to do with the content. My concern with these editors has nothing to do with who they are as people...and everything to do with their actions as editors.

A personal attack is an ad hominem fallacy...and I would be an idiot if I thought there was any value by randomly attacking these editors on the basis of who they are as people. My feedback on their behavior had everything to do with the content...which is why it certainly wasn't a personal attack. Telling somebody not to vandalize the content is the same exact thing as telling somebody that edits not based on reliable sources destroys value. If we can't tell people not to vandalize then clearly there's a problem.

The entry on other people's money has references. Does SPECIFICO's edit reflect what the reliable sources say about the topic? Did he add new reliable sources that support his edit? Show me how you address blatant disparities between edits and reliable sources. Be my "mentor". Be my Mr. Miyagi. Teach me how to wax on and wax off. --Xerographica (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, well it was my attempt at a joke, and a reference to my demonstrated preference. The "challenge" was my humorous extrapolation of your use of a stub to demonstrate a complex concept. I figured such an article should at least attempt to be as complex as the concept it was being used to demonstrate. But I'm probably the only one who thinks that's funny. Anyway, jokes aside... The sensitivity to personal attacks here is what it is. You don't have to agree with the community interpretation of a personal attack but that is the interpretation nonetheless and admins will implement that interpretation enthusiastically. If your intention is not to attack the editor, then don't focus on the editor at all. The simple answer is to find a different way of saying the same thing. Whether you like it or not, "telling another editor that they are editing outside their area of expertise", is not considered (here) to be a content-focussed criticism because it is directed at the editor. You are free to disagree, but it won't get you very far. I'm happy to be a mentor if you think it is of some value, but I'm not sure it would be. It's clear you understand policy and you're smart enough to understand what people are telling you. I think you just disagree with certain community interpretations of certain policies. The way I see it, you can either choose to be a part of the WP editing community with all of its (sometimes illogical) rules and regulations, or you can choose to take up knitting or wind surfing. But I don't think you need a mentor for that - it's entirely up to you. Stalwart111 22:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm reminded of the Calvin and Hobbes comic strip where Calvin's mom catches him pounding nails in the coffee table. "What are you doing?!" she yells at Calvin...to which he replies, "Is this a trick question?"

If editors go around removing relevant high quality content from entries...then solely focusing on the edits is simply like Calvin's mom following him around removing nails that he's continuing to pound into all the furniture.

As my mentor you can help me learn how to appropriately deal with behavior that I perceive to be destructive. Look through my to do list that I posted below. Comment on the edits...not the editors. Show me how it's done. --Xerographica (talk) 04:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Simple answer? Remove the nails. If Calvin hammers them back in, you go ask Hobbs and Calvin's dad what they think. If they agree the nails should be removed, remove them again. If Calvin then hammers them back in, you have a case at ANI, RFC/U, AIV, etc. or whatever the metaphorical equivalent is. Ha ha. If consensus is that the nails are nice, then we learn to live with the nails. Stalwart111 04:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

"you can be certain that it's not for minor issues" Now, that's not consistent with "demonstrated preference" is it? Remember, one can only infer that you chose to make that effort because it pleased you at the time. It's like the old joke: Two editors are sitting out an edit block. One of them says, I wish I were editing articles instead of talking about ferns on my talk page. The other one says, "obviously not." So my suggestion is this: Use your time on the bench to write a properly sourced article on a well-defined topic and improve the article when you come back. If it's just you and Rothbard, the article is not likely to survive. SPECIFICO 15:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The vandalism on opportunity cost has been fixed. You are right, one of the 128 page watchers should have noticed. Thanks for pointing it out.--S. Rich (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC) PS: To be fair to our fellow editors and page watchers, some people have their watch pages set to ignore bots, patrolled edits, minor edits, etc. Since a bot came in 2 days later, the vandalism would not show up on all 128 page watch lists17:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, you just used Friedman's joke to illustrate the demonstrated preference concept...but your point was to encourage me to add more economists to the entry on demonstrated preference...even though you were the one who removed all the other economists that I HAD added. Either explain why you believe that the material you removed was irrelevant (including the two references)...or undo your edits. If we're not on the same page as to where demonstrated preference ends...and other concepts begin...then you'll always remove the material that I add to the demonstrated preference entry. Of course I'll warn you that your edits are disruptive and then I'll end up being blocked again. --Xerographica (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, actually it was my feeble attempt, apparently failed, at irony. I apologize for upsetting you. My opinion remains unchanged and I now bid you and Friedman adieu. SPECIFICO 21:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Where are you going? You haven't yet shared 12 economists who you believe to be RS's on economic theory. You've mentioned more than once that you love Austrian economics...so do I! Let's talk about our favorite subject. Regarding Mises' classic book...Human Action...would you say that it falls under demonstrated preference or revealed preference?

We call contentment or satisfaction that state of a human being which does not and cannot result in any action. Acting man is eager to substitute a more satisfactory state of affairs for a less satisfactory. His mind imagines conditions which suit him better, and his action aims at bringing about this desired state. The incentive that impels a man to act is always some uneasiness. A man perfectly content with the state of his affairs would have no incentive to change things. He would have neither wishes nor desires; he would be perfectly happy. He would not act; he would simply live free from care.

What about Hayek's classic The Fatal Conceit...would you say that it falls under demonstrated preference or revealed preference?

The justification for assigning responsibility is thus the presumed effect of this practice on future action; it aims at teaching people what they ought to consider in comparable future situations...This does not mean that a man will always be assumed to be the best judge of his interests; it means merely that we can never be sure who knows them better than he...

--Xerographica (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Preference Revelation

My To Do List

Undo/dispute/RFC unconstructive edits to the following entries...

• Bang for the buck

Information for inclusion was supposed to be examples of the concept while not mentioning the concept specifically. RFC / talk page discussion should be started on the benefit of including such examples. Would suggest encyclopaedic prose supported by inline citations would be a better bet.

An extremely common theme is disagreement over whether the topic of the entry is the term itself or the concept. Should the entry focus on the origins and usages of the term or focus on the idea of people wanting more for less?

Well, both. You need to demonstrate that it is a notable concept and that the title used is at least a common way of referring to it. As in, by more than one or two people. The term needs to at least be arguably notable, in my opinion, and the concept then covered extensively. But that coverage would need at least to define it as a concept in its own right, even if it uses other language.

• Civic crowdfunding

Issue seems to be the inclusion of a particular quote which may/may not adequately illustrate the subject. Article doesn't even have a talk page on which to discuss these concerns, so that would be a good start.

Well...no quote on its own can adequately illustrate the subject. But in the absence of editor prose, if it's relevant and high quality then it's better than nothing. Starting talk pages hasn't worked out too well for me...exhibit A and exhibit B...in terms of preventing the removal of any and all content.

Sure, but a quote with no context doesn't help much either. Its almost useless in the context of an encyclopedia which is, arguably, all about context. If I walk into a mall and shout, "A bucket or pump!" it will mean nothing. On a sinking boat, however... Time to put your prose-writing hat on.

• Concentrated benefits and diffuse costs

AFD was closed with redirect as the result. This should be taken to WP:DRV for discussion if the redirect target is considered to be incorrect. If DRV has already been done, then the matter should be raised on the talk page of the current redirect target suggesting an alternate target. Title can always be taken back to DRV later to request recreation if more adequate sources can be produced.

DRV hasn't already been done.

Well then...

• Demonstrated preference

The dispute seems to be over the inclusion of bare quotes without additional context or explanation. This could probably be resolved with some discussion about context-giving prose. Bare quotes, like bare links or bare lists of products without context, are considered by many to be unencyclopedic, because they are not presented in the manner of a regular encyclopedia. Suggest some proposed wording be shopped around on the article talk page to see if the content, presented a different way, can gain consensus for inclusion.

Again, "better than nothing".

A bucket or pump! Have a crack at redrafting it as prose.

• Legal plunder

The original article had major problems - chief among them was the fact that the article lacked inline citations and the article itself was a basically a series of parts (by way of bare quotes) that purported to confirm a synthetic whole. Factually accurate or otherwise, a collection of disparate quotes does not an encyclopaedia entry make. Proper citation of relevant claims with RS would help. Suggest starting a userspace draft which could be proposed as a replacement of the current redirect.

The original article was a stub...and now it redirects to a completely irrelevant topic.

It was probably more than a "traditional" stub, but you can take the original text as a starting point for a draft. Then discuss from there.

• Other people's money

Not really sure what the "conflict" is here but I have a strong feeling that inline citations would help. A lot. There's no real indication of which sources purport to support which claims. Beyond that, RFC on the talk page for any contentious issues.

I created the page for Friedman's specific concept of government planners being careless with taxpayers money. Then edits were made based on the term itself...rather than the concept.

Yeah, again, you would need to demonstrate that it's more than just one person's idea, as above. You'll need more than just abstract quotes for that.

• Pars pro toto principle

The original version had major "quote farm" issues without proper context and the new version barely has any context at all. Suggest some prose to actually describe the content, supported by inline citations that actually discuss the concept, rather than providing examples of the concept that would need WP:OR to extract.

Same themes. 1. There's focus on the term rather than the concept itself. 2. The idea that no content is better than high quality relevant quotes from highly notable scholars.

So as above, if it hasn't been covered as a concept on its own, specifically defined, then it may not be notable. At least some of those sources (from different people) would need to use the term and offer a reasonably consistent definition.

• Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is Act

An extensive "see also" list is a bit pointless if the purpose of the legislation isn't adequately explained to begin with. It's proposed legislation - shouldn't be that hard to source. Once there's some actual context, then go about adding "see also" bits.

The legislation was adequately explained to begin with. Now it's not. I don't think the edit was an improvement.

As legislation goes, it wasn't well defined, in my opinion, before or after. Needs work, full stop. Content nuances and style preferences can be dealt with later. Let's get the first bit right first.

• The Machinery of Freedom

Comments from people need sources, basically. We can't rely on our own interpretation of what someone meant, even if our interpretation is accurate. Get a source - this one's easy.

Well...yeah...I know it's easy. That's my issue.

So, a nice easy one then... Ha ha.

• The Fatal Conceit

This article is about the book, not about the author, the concepts covered by the book, other opinions from other people like those expressed by the author in the book or about the theories of others that closely resemble those expressed by the author in the book. It's a about the book. That's it. Conceptual stuff about concepts, generally, should be covered elsewhere with the book cited as a source (where appropriate). A book with an article here on WP can be cited like any other book. The article on the book Ice Station shouldn't include tracts of information from History of Antarctica. Yeah? Same here.

Well...so where should the concept of "conceit" as Smith, Bastiat and Hayek have described it be covered?

Not every idea, thought and concept needs to be covered here on WP, but if it's a notable concept, consistenty defined, significantly covered and it can be written about in an encyclopedic manner... go for it.

--Xerographica (talk) 04:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC) Updated --Xerographica (talk) 06:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Second-level (::) responses from Stalwart111 05:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Third level responses. Thanks for taking the time to review the edits. Here are some of the themes that I keep running into...

1. The obligation to pop out entries that are so fully developed that there's little room for improvement...which defeats the point of a collaborative effort.
2. The focus on the term itself rather than the concept.
3. The disregard for high quality relevant quotes. A high quality relevant quote by Joseph Campbell is removed as if it was vandalism. Prose with quotes is better...but quotes are better than nothing.

--Xerographica (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Fourth is me again. Stalwart111 08:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

ANI notice -- Trolling

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Other people's money is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Heterogeneous activity is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

Your recent editing history at Tax choice shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.