If anyone has been involved with wikipedia articles from econ issues to the various political ideology ones you most likely hit the anti-Austrian School types when editing or on the talk page. Normal responses are to exclude the Austrian School POV or the authors associated with it with the following reasons:
1. Austrian School is fringe or non-mainstream and therefor under wikipedia rules should be removed or minimized
2. That the "source" is not consider authoritative - this might be the author, the mises.org website, the book or article isn't peer-reviewed, and so forth.
What this amounts to is any attempt of inclusion of Austrian School theory or authors, generally speaking, will be eventually removed under the fringe theories [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/ ]. The majority of editors simply do not accept any classical liberalism, libertarian, or anarcho-capitalist views and will in time scrub any material that asserts it. Which leaves the general public that use wikipedia as a reference with very little chance of seeing there is an alternative way of looking at the world, governance, and liberty.
I would think that a wikpedia that was a collaboration between like-minded organization [to a degree] could be useful and exciting. Like fee.org, cato.org , mises.org and so forth.
The objective of the project would be:
1. To allow a topic to be discussed fully and freely under the Austrian School view point and those that the general public would associate with it.
2. To act as a reference for others to see the best "sources" for the topic and the positions taken. This would "arm" those attempting to engage on a topic at wikipedia.org and similar sites the resources needed to argue for inclusion. [material at http://www.libertarianpapers.org/ for example]
3. To expose the failure or lack of sources to uphold positions that require or have certain standards; peer-reviewed material for example.
4. To also start making the distinction between sources and authors that would not be consider "fringe" under the wikipedia rules.
5. Having an "encyclopedia" would also allow everyone to know all the nuggets in the existing free materials that are on mises.org , fee.org, cato.org and so forth. As people discover all those great references for topical item in the full length books, they'll have a place to put the quote and so forth. An example issue, how would one go about now determine the various opinions on "fascism" using the material at mises.org? Is it left, right, center, or neither left or right? Is it to be consider socialism, right-wing socialism? The how and why's of it being different from classical liberalism?
I have many more ideas on this subject and reasons for a need for it, but I'll hold off until I see if anyone else is interested.
References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Economics/Archive_2#Input_requested_regarding_Austrian_School
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Far_right/Archive_3
Note - I mean a more "traditional" type of wiki than what we see with:
http://mises.org/Community/wikis/
using mediawiki most likely.
An Austrian/libertarian Wiki that is publicly editable but privately regulated (by me):
http://www.vforvoluntary.com/wiki/Home
If the Mises Institute really does believe in open-source and new media, then what it should do is take all of its books and literature and make it into a wiki. So that means that we could edit Rothbard's MES or America's Great Depression in light of new facts, or re-construct them into new articles entirely.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Have you thought about asking the various sites that might be interest in linking to your wiki? Like mises.org and fee.org ? I'm not sure if either of their sites are interesting in doing a "wiki" or linking to one. Mises.org does have a large number of visitors that might be required to really get a project like this reaching a critical mass.
Stranger: If the Mises Institute really does believe in open-source and new media, then what it should do is take all of its books and literature and make it into a wiki. So that means that we could edit Rothbard's MES or America's Great Depression in light of new facts, or re-construct them into new articles entirely.
That is a really interesting idea.
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
Or, you could download the PDF, free of charge, then copy the text onto Microsoft Word and make the edits there. Then you hit the save button and make your revised copy available to everyone.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Daniel Muffinburg: Or, you could download the PDF, free of charge, then copy the text onto Microsoft Word and make the edits there. Then you hit the save button and make your revised copy available to everyone.
Geez, why didn't people ever think of that before Wikipedia became astonishingly popular?
You can do this exact thing on my Wiki; there are a number of articles on it by DiLorenzo, Hoppe, etc.
I just made the topics general btw (The Myth of Natural Monopoly -> Monopoly); which makes it a little easier to navigate, and better for the Wiki format.
Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg: Or, you could download the PDF, free of charge, then copy the text onto Microsoft Word and make the edits there. Then you hit the save button and make your revised copy available to everyone. Geez, why didn't people ever think of that before Wikipedia became astonishingly popular?
Furthermore, you could download the Wikipedia open source and install it onto your website and make a Wikipedia-like version of what ever it is you want published.
Nielsio: You can do this exact thing on my Wiki; there are a number of articles on it by DiLorenzo, Hoppe, etc.
You should contact the Mises Institute to set up an official relationship. They would have to drive traffic to your site for it to take off.
Daniel Muffinburg: Furthermore, you could download the Wikipedia open source and install it onto your website and make a Wikipedia-like version of what ever it is you want published.
Thank you for your advice from 1999.
Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg: Furthermore, you could download the Wikipedia open source and install it onto your website and make a Wikipedia-like version of what ever it is you want published. Thank you for your advice from 1999.
You're welcome!
Notice this thread and the difficulty Liburne had trying to add his own research/reference because of the way mises.org handles its content.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paul_Krugman/Archive_2#Use_of_Mises_website_articles_in_BLPs
politicalmisses:Notice this thread and the difficulty Liburne had trying to add his own research/reference because of the way mises.org handles its content.
I think it is more of a bias from the people at wikipedia. Their site is topographical trash anyways when it comes to delving into social science theories and events.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
politicalmisses: Notice this thread and the difficulty Liburne had trying to add his own research/reference because of the way mises.org handles its content. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paul_Krugman/Archive_2#Use_of_Mises_website_articles_in_BLPs
That was painful to read. If mises.org is fringe, then why was it used as a source for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises?
I think that the advantages of their opensourcedness far outweigh those disadvantages.
wikipedia.org will be around for a long time and will always be useful to everyone. My point is that there's a meme, group think, that will continue to fight against AS supported and similar authors and positions in favor of Statist approving ones. We need to continue to play the game, but play it smarter than them. A wikipedia type project would allow "us" to get our stuff together prior to submission formally for reference on sites like wikipedia. It's easier to get one link added to an article [ link on topic sourcing the mises.org wikipedia article that fully explains the position] on wikipedia.org than it is trying to insert multiple sources to explain the position completely.
I. Ryan: Stranger: If the Mises Institute really does believe in open-source and new media, then what it should do is take all of its books and literature and make it into a wiki. So that means that we could edit Rothbard's MES or America's Great Depression in light of new facts, or re-construct them into new articles entirely. That is a really interesting idea.
Seconded. With all the discussion on this forum over the finer points, I could see a resource such as this becoming very useful.
Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both.—Ludwig von Mises
Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both.
Justin Spahr-Summers: I. Ryan: Stranger: If the Mises Institute really does believe in open-source and new media, then what it should do is take all of its books and literature and make it into a wiki. So that means that we could edit Rothbard's MES or America's Great Depression in light of new facts, or re-construct them into new articles entirely. That is a really interesting idea. Seconded. With all the discussion on this forum over the finer points, I could see a resource such as this becoming very useful.
I third the for need FAQ/Wiki style page, it has been requested a few times in the past. We have a wiki page here but it mechanically does not work very intuitively.
Daniel Muffinburg: That was painful to read. If mises.org is fringe, then why was it used as a source for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises?
This was painful to read... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School
The first paragraph is abysmal.
Seriously... the 'ignorant' who wrote that, doesn't even understand that economics is value free (meant to be anyway).
Anyone able to change it?
Conza88: Daniel Muffinburg: That was painful to read. If mises.org is fringe, then why was it used as a source for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises? This was painful to read... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School The first paragraph is abysmal. Seriously... the 'ignorant' who wrote that, doesn't even understand that economics is value free (meant to be anyway). Anyone able to change it?
Anyone can change it. Just click the edit button. If you register you may have more chance to have changes kept.
An AE Wiki would be pretty sweet, as it would be way easier to convince someone to read a pithy wiki than Socialism, or Ethics of Liberty, etc.. Being more of a philosophy of freedom guy myself, rather than an economics wonk, it would be great to see some of that side of liberty based thought there as well.
filc: Justin Spahr-Summers: I. Ryan: Stranger:If the Mises Institute really does believe in open-source and new media, then what it should do is take all of its books and literature and make it into a wiki. So that means that we could edit Rothbard's MES or America's Great Depression in light of new facts, or re-construct them into new articles entirely. That is a really interesting idea. Seconded. With all the discussion on this forum over the finer points, I could see a resource such as this becoming very useful. I third the for need FAQ/Wiki style page, it has been requested a few times in the past. We have a wiki page here but it mechanically does not work very intuitively.
Justin Spahr-Summers: I. Ryan: Stranger:If the Mises Institute really does believe in open-source and new media, then what it should do is take all of its books and literature and make it into a wiki. So that means that we could edit Rothbard's MES or America's Great Depression in light of new facts, or re-construct them into new articles entirely. That is a really interesting idea. Seconded. With all the discussion on this forum over the finer points, I could see a resource such as this becoming very useful.
I. Ryan: Stranger:If the Mises Institute really does believe in open-source and new media, then what it should do is take all of its books and literature and make it into a wiki. So that means that we could edit Rothbard's MES or America's Great Depression in light of new facts, or re-construct them into new articles entirely. That is a really interesting idea.
Stranger:If the Mises Institute really does believe in open-source and new media, then what it should do is take all of its books and literature and make it into a wiki. So that means that we could edit Rothbard's MES or America's Great Depression in light of new facts, or re-construct them into new articles entirely.
Working on it, piece by piece.
With Wikipedia, one always needs to remember that AE is a hard sell, independent of editorial bias (which is unfortunately present). I wouldn't call the school 'fringe', but it is definitely not mainstream. Plus they are frequently annoyed by our less diplomatic supporters, who indiscriminately edit anything they come to, culminating in edit wars. The image of the average Austrian supporter is not very bright it seems.
Do small edits, link well, hold on to your references. It's very possible to start on obscure historical pages and slowly go to more important topics.
Mises Wiki | Economic Resources and Books (search engine)
I've inserted and have been editing a section on the Wikipedia page for praxeology on the etymology of the word over the past few days. I found the word being used several times earlier than Louis Bourdeau and Alfred Espinas, who are usually credited with coining the term; one instance was 260 years before Bourdeau by Clemens Timpler. There are several books on praxeology and the origin of it out there, but all of them have missed this.
The rest of the praxeology Wiki needs cleaning up, but I've really only worked on the etymology section.
Wikipedia is a stupid idea. A mass of people edit-warring over one monolithic gospel text. I don't think so.
There is a StackExchange site for questions and answers about Austrian Economics running at:
http://mises.stackexchange.com/
Please do take a look at it, its much faster and dynamic than wiki, and much more direct in terms of what you are looking for than a forum.It has not even touched 24 hours since the first question appeared on it and it has already 21 questions and many fold answers on it.
“The ideally non-violent state will be an ordered anarchy. That State is the best governed which is governed the least”-Gandhi
prashantpawar: There is a StackExchange site for questions and answers about Austrian Economics running at: http://mises.stackexchange.com/
Its awesome
Le Master:I've inserted and have been editing a section on the Wikipedia page for praxeology on the etymology of the word over the past few days.
Did you write the stuff about "Praxeology (from πραζιζ, action), or by referring to the influence of the environment, environmental data (from μεơοζ, middle)"? Did the person you're quoting really write ζ in place of ξ and ς? :)
Paul:Did you write the stuff about "Praxeology (from πραζιζ, action), or by referring to the influence of the environment, environmental data (from μεơοζ, middle)"? Did the person you're quoting really write ζ in place of ξ and ς? :)
Yeah. I'll need to look at the book again, but I'm pretty sure I copied it exactly as it was written; I wanted to make sure I had it perfect. What should it really be?
Le Master: Paul:Did you write the stuff about "Praxeology (from πραζιζ, action), or by referring to the influence of the environment, environmental data (from μεơοζ, middle)"? Did the person you're quoting really write ζ in place of ξ and ς? :) Yeah. I'll need to look at the book again, but I'm pretty sure I copied it exactly as it was written; I wanted to make sure I had it perfect. What should it really be?
πραξις and μεσος (or, more properly, πρᾶξις and μέσος)
I mostly prefer to make small edits or add to relatively obscure pages, like the Bank of Amsterdam. There is one major topic, though, which I would like to take on at some point - the Panic of 1907, used to justify the Fed. There has been already an Austrian-leaning explanation present in the summary of the topic, but it was thrown out. That wasn't surprising.
What is needed is some skillful writing, that would find a good place for the explanation, and not draw the immediate ire of Wikipedians (maybe a separate section on the causes, or adding a small section somewhere). No less important are the resources, (I don't have more than Rothbard's writings at hand - some points are here and here), so some research may be necessary.
If anyone is interested and willing to do the work, please let me know. I have little time, but will help you, should you accept this mission. :)