MisesWiki talk:Reviewspace

It might be useful to have, say, Review:Human Action/1, which could link to subpages for the various reviews of chapter 1, such as Review:Human Action/1/Nathan Larson. Alternatively, there could be categories such as Category:Reviews of Human Action/1 (subpages should be enabled for categoryspace; this will not get in the way of those categoryspace subpages being used as categories just like the basepages). In that category, we could put, say, Essay:Nathan Larson review of Human Action/1. Nathan Larson (talk) 12:10, 11 November 2012 (MSK)

Okay... how do the reviews exactly "represent the views of Mises Wiki"? What are those views anyway?

The very first review posted as an example (I assume) is yet another personal contribution of only one member. As it stands, I am inclined to move it into Essays, where we have ample room for analysis of this kind.

I am also starting to wonder what all these "spaces" are for. If we want to add personal analysis, we can create user subpages. If we want collaboration, we can create Essays, or call for collaboration with others on user pages. If the only point of them is to push personal views, I suggest scrapping the "spaces" and use the existing venues. Pestergaines (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2012 (MSK)

Well, I don't mind re-abolishing Reviewspace if it's deemed unnecessary. The proliferation of spaces is inspired by RationalWiki, but that site seems a bit less serious-minded than this one. RW tends to establish site opinions by mobocracy, and they will put as headings "RationalWiki's response", forming a united front as it were against the opposition. The downside is that dissidents from the site's viewpoint are often dismissed rather blithely and harshly, and sometimes even suppressed entirely.

So, maybe RW is not the best inspiration, given that their methods have resulted in a rather dysfunctional wiki, at least when it comes to constructive dialog and sincere truth-seeking. It's a popular site, but as Ayn Rand noted in a lot of her novels, what's popular and what's unpopular often constitute a sad commentary on the preferences of most people in our society. Nathan Larson (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2012 (MSK)