MisesWiki:Commons/Archives/2012

USA-centrism
I am wondering if we might consider aiming for a more global perspective in our developing articles. This has been occurring to me as I have been tinkering with Net neutrality, a timely issue in the U.S. as of December 2010 but still with application elsewhere.

After all, at this writing we are billed as "A Global Repository". Further, in presenting praxeological truths that remain true regardless of location or era, a global approach--or at least acknowledgement--seems prudent and consistent.

Of course, I also recognize I can simply take this approach on my own whether or not anyone else "approves," and maybe it is mostly my eyes that have been slow to open, while perhaps most are already doing this. I thought I would at least put the idea out on the table for others' consideration.

Any of you non-USA folks care to chime in? Are readers of Mises Wiki as concentrated in the USA as we might think? Please feel free, all. -- RayBirks 15:58, 2 January 2011 (CST)
 * Do you have specific suggestions on how to aim for this goal? In general I'd leave this to the discretion of the users, let them work on whatever they are interested in. A certain USA-centricity is probably unavoidable (speaking from Europe here). But if you want to make the thought more popular and maybe even coordinate the efforts, you could make an "International" WikiProject. There are even users thinking about writing in different languages, so it could house them as well.
 * Speaking of statistics, the page with the Meetups is the second most visited page, but the number of international visitors (or visitors in total) would be interesting to know... will try to find out more. Pestergaines 05:53, 4 January 2011 (CST)
 * Pestergaines, thanks for your comments. No, I don't have specific goals, and starting up a WikiProject seems like it would be more than I would like to handle just now.  We are still "just getting going," after all.  Your thought of leaving it to users' discretion makes the most sense to me in the here and now.  My main thought is, for myself, to keep the experiences of others in mind, rather than fall into the trap of my own geo-centrism, if you will.  Thx.  :)   --RayBirks 13:20, 8 January 2011 (CST)
 * Well, it's still something to keep an eye out for in the long term. (And should it be necessary, the start of a page is already there. :) ) Have a nice day! Pestergaines 13:43, 8 January 2011 (CST)
 * Maybe we should eventually go for a scheme of en.miseswiki.org, fr.miseswiki.org, etc.? Nathan Larson (talk) 11:31, 7 August 2012 (MSD)
 * If there is a sufficient amount of other-language pages, we can definitely go that way. Pestergaines (talk) 03:26, 12 August 2012 (MSD)
 * In the meantime, perhaps users can do what they do at MediaWiki.org, which is create subpages for each language, and then use a navigation template to go from one to the other? See, for example, mw:Manual:LocalSettings.php/de or Download/fr. Nathan Larson (talk) 03:36, 11 September 2012 (MSD)

Just let whoever has the time and the inclination edit the wiki if they're from Europe great if not that's great too at least they're working on the project. If you allow people to put stuff up in their native tounges that might help as well. Diax (talk) 09:59, 17 May 2013 (MSD)


 * Side note: we have a little page/project for non-English posts. Pestergaines (talk) 14:24, 19 May 2013 (MSD)

Argumentation
I've started a little experiment, an argumentation chain for Austrian Business Cycle Theory in the making. Planning to expand it in the next few days, see if you can use for it.

The concept can be expanded for other arguments, of course. :) Pestergaines 16:54, 16 January 2011 (CST)
 * "No, it can't!"
 * "Yes, it can!" (heh) -- RayBirks 17:17, 16 January 2011 (CST)
 * See? That's what I'm talking about. :D Pestergaines 17:22, 16 January 2011 (CST)

Could you guys comment at Category talk:Argumentation? I don't understand what its scope should be. --Forgottenman (talk) 08:02, 27 January 2011 (CST)
 * Will do so soon, after further reflection. Myself, I have actually been back and forth on this one (haha). It is my plan, however, to make suggestions and changes in a friendly, flexible, and non-abrasive manner, which is completely consistent with a classical liberal, Austrian School, and/or anarcho-capitalistic outlook. Further, this approach may be implied or even demanded by the argumentation justification for libertarianism first offered by Hans-Hermann Hoppe in the 1980s. When coupled with the increasing biological empirical data that disrespectful and harmful words can damage the listener's (or reader's) brain, polite and respectful discourse may even be necessary to sustain the species.  So, I will comment soon.  :) -- RayBirks 19:24, 27 January 2011 (CST)
 * N.B. to Forgot: No worries:  I did not mean to sound like I was implicating you.  You are just fine! It's just that, this topic (i.e., my "mini-rant") has been on my mind of late.  Further, upon listening to this 25-minute video interview about the Mises Wiki, recorded in mid-December 2010, I was reminded how I have distanced myself from the Wikipedia project as I increasingly encountered editors who need some basic kindergarten people skills. Is it any wonder people draw back from editing, newcomers especially? To paraphrase Gresham's Law: Bad manners drive out good manners. Their chilling effect is unseen but powerful. I would like this community to champion an atmosphere of mutual respect and to more readily shun or exile those who cannot or will not do so. Living by example is important, yes, but boundaries need maintenance. -- RayBirks 21:31, 27 January 2011 (CST)

To continue the kindergarten analogy, I would say the problem is not so much that the kids lack the necessary social skills to play well with each other over on Wikipedia, as it is that the designated "adults" (sysops, ArbCom, etc. operating under the ultimate authority of the Board of Trustees) have either instigated or permitted the stifling of much productive activity, which has discouraged people from wanting to continue participating. Jimbo, who is analogous to the principal of the school, could have run it in a Montessori manner that gave the kids more liberty, while dealing firmly with those who sought to interfere with that liberty. Instead, he put in place a bunch of overly restrictive rules and invited the community to decide by "rough consensus" matters that really should have been left to individuals' discretion.

If you look at a kindergarten where all the kids are allowed to do what they want, as long as they don't hurt others, you'll see them exploring many different avenues (e.g. one may read a book, others may play hide and seek, others may build a tower with blocks). But tragically, there often comes a point at which the adults say "Put that away; it's time to study x now," or some group of bullies (typically operating with the support or acquiescence of most of the class members, and with the tolerance of the mostly-apathetic teacher) will interfere with someone enjoying himself and being productive in his own way. I am reminded of this passage from Ayn Rand's essay "The Comprachicos": He does not know what to do; he is told to do anything he feels like. He picks up a toy; it is snatched away from him by another child; he is told that he must learn to share. Why? No answer is given. He sits alone in a corner; he is told that he must join the others. Why? No answer is given. He approaches a group, reaches for their toys and is punched in the nose. He cries, in angry bewilderment; the teacher throws her arms around him and gushes that she loves him. . . . He learns that regardless of what he does—whether his action is right or wrong, honest or dishonest, sensible or senseless—if the pack disapproves, he is wrong and his desire is frustrated; if the pack approves, then anything goes. . . . He learns that it is no use starting any lengthy project of his own—such as building a castle out of boxes—it will be taken over or destroyed by others. The Wikipedians are happy to express their insincere wikilove by delivering a plateful of virtual cookies to your talk page when you arrive, but they won't allow editors the freedom to build a house (i.e. an article) without subjecting it to the arbitrary judgment of the community on issues of notability and so on. If you try to post, say, a resume in your userpage giving useful background about yourself, they put that up for deletion too, saying it's a vanity page or spam. A lot of times, it just amounts to a popularity contest in which editors with unpopular opinions or independent styles are more likely to be assumed to have bad faith. If you express an opinion that maybe this isn't the best way to run an encyclopedia, they say "If you don't like it, the rest of the internet is that-a-way." And so, here we are. Nathan Larson (talk) 09:02, 7 August 2012 (MSD)