Misplaced Pages

Talk:Concentrated benefits and diffuse costs: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:46, 31 January 2013 editVolunteer Marek (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers94,133 edits What do the RS say?← Previous edit Revision as of 19:16, 31 January 2013 edit undoXerographica (talk | contribs)2,148 edits What do the RS say?: disagreeing with me based on...?Next edit →
Line 15: Line 15:
:::::::Do I need a reliable source to support the statement that building a bridge has an ]? --] (]) 08:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC) :::::::Do I need a reliable source to support the statement that building a bridge has an ]? --] (]) 08:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
::::::::There's a significant number of editors who are disagreeing with, all over the same thing (excessive block quotes, original research etc), not just here but at other articles as well, all of whom came to this conclusion independently. This should tell you something. You're now engaging in ]. At this point further discussion becomes a waste of time.<span style="color:Blue">]</span><span style="color:Orange">]</span> 14:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC) ::::::::There's a significant number of editors who are disagreeing with, all over the same thing (excessive block quotes, original research etc), not just here but at other articles as well, all of whom came to this conclusion independently. This should tell you something. You're now engaging in ]. At this point further discussion becomes a waste of time.<span style="color:Blue">]</span><span style="color:Orange">]</span> 14:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::And how many of those editors use reliable sources as the basis of their disagreements? --] (]) 19:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:16, 31 January 2013

Articles for deletionThis 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)
If you think quotes are copyright violations then go head over to the Wikiquote project to inform them that they are violating copyright. If you do not see a connection between the quote and the topic...either the connection does not exist...or maybe the connection does exist but you're just not seeing it. Which one do you think it is? Well...given that it was your idea that this topic be redirected to TOC...I'm pretty sure I know which one it is. Have you ever considered reading what the reliable sources have to say about the topic? --Xerographica (talk) 07:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I'm sure that some of your quotes are copyright violations. They are much too long to merely support the point you are trying to make, even when they do support the point. As for the "connection", I don't recall anyone agreeing with you that there is a connection. If you claim that a reliable source supports the connection, then please provide that source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Do I need a reliable source to support the statement that building a bridge has an opportunity cost? --Xerographica (talk) 08:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
There's a significant number of editors who are disagreeing with, all over the same thing (excessive block quotes, original research etc), not just here but at other articles as well, all of whom came to this conclusion independently. This should tell you something. You're now engaging in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. At this point further discussion becomes a waste of time.Volunteer Marek 14:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
And how many of those editors use reliable sources as the basis of their disagreements? --Xerographica (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)