From Mises Wiki, the global repository of classical-liberal thought
Jump to: navigation, search

Suggested order of closing sections

Is there a working rule of thumb for the order of the closing sections? I just added the See also section on the Great Depression page, and it seems out of whack.

I am thinking the order should be:

  • See also
  • Links
  • References

Opinions? Input? And are there further sections we should take into account in this discussion? Thanks! -- RayBirks 20:06, 9 December 2010 (CST)

WP standard is "See also" then "References" then "Links" (see wikipedia:WP:FOOTERS). I like links to be last because they are least related to the content of the article. References specifically relate to the article itself; links point the reader outside the wiki and thus (IMHO) belong at the end. I'm okay with putting "See also" below or above references; either way makes sense. Other footer section types might be "Works" (i.e., on the page of a person – include a list of books he's written) and "Further reading" (like "Links" but to hard copy books for which links aren't available and which weren't used as references). Regarding those, I say Works first, and Further reading second to last. So:
  • Works
  • References
  • See also
  • Further reading
  • Links
Or switch 2 and 3. Other ideas? --Forgottenman (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2010 (CST)
I like that list, although I think you might be right about putting the "see also" before the "references". Also, I would like to add "notes" above the "references" spot. What people typically refer to as "references" in the case of wikipedia are really footnotes. "References" would refer to general places of info that were used for overall info for the article. I forgot where they discussed this on WP, but you can see how it is done at Wikipedia:WP:CITE --John James 03:29, 11 April 2011 (MSD)

Logic category

With the key basis for Austrian economics being deductive logic, and a lacking of articles on deductive logic, I'd like to suggest that logic in its general form should be part of the scope of this wiki, possibly cultivated within a 'Logic' category. Naturally, we can make this relevant to economics through examples (rather than the traditional All Men are Mortal example). -- Six 08:26, 13 December 2010 (CST)

Logic is already part of the scope of this wiki, and it is only logical. :) Pestergaines 08:51, 13 December 2010 (CST)
I put in for the whole area of applied-logics, the a-priori's of old that have lived poorly under the positivists. It seems ASoE was one of the few, or the only, to survive and prosper. LvM wrote of prax as the whole of sociology, of which econ (catallactics) was just a sub-category. As well, several early folk were econ & somewhat-sociologists, e.g., Sumner, Oppenheimer, and Gumplowicz. Some work was done by Aus-phil Franz Brentano. I seems ASoE shoulda picked up on all that long ago, but BB-Mises-Rothbard had enough to do keeping ASoE alive. Maybe HHH has worked on it. Just an idea. Junker 20:29, 22 January 2011 (CST)

Mark all copies

Please mark all copy text from Wikipedia or elsewhere with

--copy text--

or so.

{| style="background-color:#ffffe0;" cellpadding="10"
| style="background:yellow" | || text
|} --Reserved 10:25, 1 January 2011 (CST)

I'm not sure that such visible notice is necessary. Copies from Wikipedia need simply to be acknowledged. But really only editors need to know which information was copied. So it would be much better to use html comments (<! -- and -- >, without spaces, see the edit window for an example) to indicate this. --Forgottenman (talk) 19:02, 1 January 2011 (CST)
Such ideals don't exist. Editors start in the state to be a reader. Everything that should be rewritten needs comments. The best place is the direct one. See also the edits of Karmaisking after my ones in Austrian School. --Reserved 04:41, 2 January 2011 (CST)
Fair enough. To make this easier, you can use a template I just created, Template:Rewrite. --Forgottenman (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2011 (CST)
Fine --Reserved 03:58, 4 January 2011 (CST)

What constitutes a minor edit

From the Help:Wiki FAQ:

"...Generally, small formatting changes, adding a link, changing a category, or fixing one or two spelling or grammar mistakes are all considered minor edits. If that describes your edit, check the box. It helps other users keeping an eye on that page that you didn't make a drastic edit.

"Larger edits, like those involving actual content, or substantial reorganization of the article, are not minor edits. Don't check the "This is a minor edit" box when you save; otherwise people might think you're trying to mislead them. For this reason, if you think your edit might be controversial, no matter how big it is, don't call it a minor edit." --RayBirks 11:25, 5 January 2011 (CST)

Is this a question? --Forgottenman (talk) 13:50, 7 January 2011 (CST)
No. The "minor edit" indicator has been used incorrectly of late, so I thought I would include this here for general review. Sorry to confuse. -- RayBirks 23:10, 7 January 2011 (CST)


I've set up MisesWiki:Academy as a framework for collaboration between the Mises Academy and the Mises Wiki. Professors will soon be allowing students in the Mises Academy to earn credit for contributions related to their classes. The goal is that this will drive new contributions, and perhaps bring us additional volunteers.

Feel free to comment or incorporate any ideas directly to that page. --Forgottenman (talk) 13:22, 24 January 2011 (CST)

Featured article

We should have a (changing) featured article on the main page. The call for a massive editorial effort as in Wikipedia seems to be gone, and with our compact user base it may not be worth it. Can we at least agree on a few basic articles, that can be put on the main page? Add, comment, suggest better ones. Pestergaines 04:04, 1 March 2011 (CST)

I set April to be Rothbard, see MisesWiki:Featured article/April 2011 and feel free to edit the blurb. --Forgottenman (talk) 09:54, 11 March 2011 (CST)

Stub usage

I've been noticing some pretty detailed pages marked as stubs, but don't really qualify as such according to wikipedia's use of the term--which considers a stub to be an article with a very small amount of information, a few sentences or perhaps paragraphs. I've started removing some of these, but am wondering if there's a cleanup template or the like that I should be replacing them with? Anyone have thoughts on the matter? --Wobbles 02:39, 2 March 2011 (CST)

Yeah, I've often marked pages, that need more content to be considered reasonably 'complete' as Stubs. Feel free to remove the Stub tag where it seems prudent. Thanks for the edits, Wobbles! Pestergaines 04:05, 2 March 2011 (CST)

I've set up a new template and category for articles that require general cleanup for copyediting, restructuring, point of view changes, etc. That way it will be easier for people who'd rather do that kind of work than expand articles can find them more easily, and vice versa. To mark an article for cleanup, add {{cleanup}} to the top of a page. --Wobbles 11:02, 2 March 2011 (CST)

Very nice. It'd be good to add an optional parameter that allows the person adding the template to specify exactly what needs to be cleaned up. I'll try to get to this soon. --Forgottenman (talk) 14:09, 2 March 2011 (CST)

One other thing of note: I think it makes more sense to put these kinds of notices (cleanup, stub, unsourced, etc) at the top of the page, as wikipedia does rather than the bottom. If there are no objections I'll begin moving stubs placed at the bottom and also change the wording in the stub category to reflect that. --Wobbles 12:59, 2 March 2011 (CST)

As far as stubs go, I disagree: the stub notice should go at the bottom. Incidentally, this is how they appear on Wikipedia as well (see WP:STUB). I would prefer that similar templates (like cleanup) go at the bottom as well (though this is different from WP). Templates that are more important to readers (like point of view dispute, lack of sources, etc.) should be the only ones that are at the top (in my opinion).

I just alluded to my rationale, namely, that readers don't need to be alerted that an article needs cleanup, or that it's a stub. Perhaps they'll notice, perhaps not. If they do, and want to contribute, they can. But the cleanup and stub templates (and especially the related categories) are designed for editors. Thus they can go at the bottom, where they are less distracting to someone who is simply looking for more information.

Anyway, just my thoughts on the matter. --Forgottenman (talk) 14:09, 2 March 2011 (CST)

My mistake regarding WP's policy, I didn't investigate as closely as I should have. In the case of stubs in particular, it's largely irrelevant in the proper case, as the article should only be a few sentences to begin with; it shouldn't be long enough to get in the way.
I was thinking of them more as disclaimers, an acknowledgement that regular editors don't consider the particular article exemplary for whichever particular reason.
Anyway I'm fine with whatever conclusion is arrived at, I had just seen it both ways and figured I'd do something to make it more consistent. Feel free to just revert the changes, they should all have clear comments. Just let me know which I should be doing! --Wobbles 14:35, 2 March 2011 (CST)
Since you're the one doing the work, and others don't seem to care too much, feel free to do it however you think it's best. It's pretty easy to use a bot to change them later if need be. --Forgottenman (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2011 (CST)
I prefer stubs at the bottom as well. I actually hadn't thought about it, but I think like the idea of leaving cleanup/expand related templates at the bottom and only having tags that are relevant alerts to the reader posted up above the article or relevant sections. The reader doesn't need to be alerted that the community doesn't consider the article complete or up to some standard. --John James 10:54, 9 April 2011 (MSD)

Article #600

Ladies and gentlemen, with the addition of Benjamin Tucker‎ we have reached 600 articles. Congratulations, everyone! Pestergaines 08:19, 3 March 2011 (CST)

New Drive for Stubs!

Things are getting kinda settled down, which isn't bad, but it never hurts to shake it up once in a while and get some more creative energy flowing! It was suggested to me, that a more general drive for Stubs could be great (and okay, writing up 19th century panics is not everyone's cup of tea).

So, how about starting a drive for Government Programs? Any programs and all, in the US or outside, past or present, making a basic write-up, and perhaps add some mishaps of the agency in question, whether on the theoretical level, or on a purely practical.

I think that might be a bit more popular. Ideas? (Needs a great name, for a start.) Pestergaines 14:50, 28 March 2011 (MSD)

Name suggestion: "What Has the Government Ever Done for Us?" Pestergaines 14:45, 29 March 2011 (MSD)

Well, it would seem someone actually started a similar project for the coming weekend (Operation "Expand the Mises Wiki"), so let's see what comes of it! Since this idea is still embryonic, it can wait a week or two. Support for either is definitively welcome. :) Pestergaines 02:48, 30 March 2011 (MSD)
The result have been 11 more pages, I guess that can be considered a success! The government projects will be the subject of the next drive this coming weekend; announcement to come. Pestergaines 12:22, 5 April 2011 (MSD)

Most wanted Stub and Update

Anyone, please check the Most wanted page and add a vote on which stubs need to be really created and which pages really need more content. Of course you can do it all by yourself, this page is a motivational tool for the lazier folks among us, to show us where is the most interest. Cheers. Pestergaines 22:08, 3 April 2011 (MSD)

style guide concerning wikipedia links

The thing that's occurred to me most in editing so far is how much (i.e. what) should actually be wiki-fied. MisesWiki:About#About Mises Wiki doesn't really help clarify this. Tucker is quoted as saying "We don't want an encyclopedia only"...and the "vs" section states "this does not mean that Mises Wiki is limited to topics typically considered to be part of the Austrian School of Economics or libertarianism in general. Instead, the content of any topic can be developed, so long as it furthers the goals of Mises Wiki."

Those to me sound like this is more or less supposed to be a pretty robust collection of articles. But at the same time I don't see there being much of a need for a Mises Wiki article on Green Meadows, Ohio...or is there?

I'm wondering if we can come up with at least a general guideline (if not some sort of litmus test) with which to help editors know which wiki-markup to be using (if any...as that raises another question: do we have a problem with linking to Wikipedia?)


  1. How are editors going to know what articles should be avoided (i.e. not created and/or wiki-fied into a red link)?
  2. Should those that get avoided because they are too far outside of the MisesWiki scope get linked to Wikipedia?

--John James 10:46, 9 April 2011 (MSD)

I don't have any exact answer for this question at this point. While the wiki should one day grow into an extensive encyclopedia, it will take its time and it will (most likely) keep its focus on economics and politics. I wouldn't go overboard with linking to all possible topics.
Maybe the best suggestion here is to use common sense - is a page for a given topic likely to be created in a foreseeable future, or is it at least desirable? If not, then don't bother. So Green Meadows, Ohio, doesn't really look like it. On the other hand, a major American city linked from several other topics and likely to have several articles about itself (e.g. Boston or Chicago) is a much more suitable candidate.
As for linking to Wikipedia, I am a proponent of linking to it in the Links section, whenever useful. Using Wikipedia links in the text is okay to me, but the general opinion seems to be that it should be limited to a minimum.
So for now, it's more common sense then a guideline... we can try to create one over time. Opinions welcome! Pestergaines 00:16, 12 April 2011 (MSD)

Wikipedia article link

Just figured I'd publicize...I created a template for linking to the Wikipedia version of an article. I agree with the idea above that it should be left as the last possible link on a page, which is why I've kept it there on all the pages I've added and edited since I read that suggestion. The template is {{wplink}}. Have a look-see, and I would suggest we go ahead and add it to the bottom of the links section on every page we edit. I figure it wouldn't take much to create a bot to do this, but I'm not familiar enough with that to do it at this point. --John James 09:28, 12 April 2011 (MSD)

Don't see a great need to rewrite all pages from the stretch, but it is certainly very handy. Simple and immediately useful, now that's to my liking - thanks, John James! Pestergaines 21:09, 12 April 2011 (MSD)
Didn't say anything about rewriting pages. Just suggesting that when you're editing a page, if it's not there, go ahead and add it to the bottom of the links section. I figure all the pages will eventually get linked to their Wikipedia counterpart at some point anyway, so I see nothing wrong with having it done uniformly. Unless someone has a problem with linking to the WP version of articles, (which didn't seem to be the case) I don't see why there's anything wrong with that. Am I wrong on this? --John James 00:04, 13 April 2011 (MSD)
Yes, this is a good idea. --Forgottenman (talk) 00:44, 13 April 2011 (MSD)

categorizing redirects

I also wanted to make a suggestion that we get in the practice (and encourage editors) to categorize redirects. I've already created a handfull of these templates and their corresponding categories, and even if a template that should be used isn't yet created, it would make no difference so long as it is placed on the proper pages. Here is a list of Wikipedia's template messages for redirect pages...which I see no problem in utilizing identically. --John James 10:03, 12 April 2011 (MSD)

Could you explain the rationale for this? It seems like extra work with nothing gained. --Forgottenman (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2011 (MSD)
The rationale for categorizing redirects? Are you not familiar with this concept? I thought you were a WP administrator? See Wikipedia:categorizing redirects — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14:56, 12 April 2011 (talkcontribs) John James
The concept is easy to understand. The question is, what is the profit out of this operation, for this particular wiki? I guess it can make sense for a wiki with 3.600.000 articles, but for a wiki with 600, it's rather premature. :) Pestergaines 00:21, 13 April 2011 (MSD)
Right. I understand the purpose of categorizing redirects as needed (i.e., this example), but I don't see how "redirect-only" categories do much good. I've never gotten involved in redirect maintenance on WP; perhaps someone there has a good explanation for it.
In general I don't see much value in a lot that Wikipedia does. I did my fair share of busy work (mostly stub sorting, in my case), and the increasing bureaucracy is why I work on smaller wikis more these days. --Forgottenman (talk) 00:57, 13 April 2011 (MSD)

Pestergaines, I don't understand. Just yesterday you were saying how you didn't think it was worth it to go back and add something to a page after the fact, and now you're saying that making a practice of adding a simple template whenever you create a redirect is "premature"...suggesting that when we have a few million articles, then it might make sense to go back and categorize them or try to effect some kind of order to it?

This makes little sense to me. I can understand the notion that having a category of "People from New Haven, Connecticut", that only one or two articles would be a part of for a very long time, might not be necessary...but I see nothing wrong in simply adding the proper template to a redirect whenever you create one. --John James 10:41, 13 April 2011 (MSD)

I apologize for being unclear. Going back to every single page and edit it is a large effort, that should be justified by an even larger positive return (i.e. profit). Now, a template that is short and easy to insert is a guaranteed winner for use when one is creating a new page. But is it worth it to go over all pages and apply it to each one afterwords? The positive return would be a negligible decrease in page size, which to me doesn't justify the effort.
As for the categorization of redirects, perhaps I should have been more clear in that I didn't see any profit at all. Interestingly, Forgottenman has above shown an example, where it can be very useful! So it can be applicable in specific cases, which is good to know. In the general case, though, I have to refer to his point about unnecessary bureaucracy.
About this wiki having millions of articles... don't get me all dreamy! :) I'd be absolutely happy if it reached thousands in the first place. My preference is to develop more and better content before over-organizing everything. Pestergaines 00:36, 14 April 2011 (MSD)

Perhaps I wasn't clear. When I say "Just suggesting that when you're editing a page, if it's not there, go ahead and add it to the bottom of the links section" I mean just that. Again, I never said anything about anyone or any group of people making a conscious effort to go through every single article in the Mises Wiki just to add a template. I did say that that is a task that a bot could easily do.

And I'm not sure you're really understanding what I'm saying here about categorizing redirects either. I would recommend following the above link that explains the practice in detail, but the bottom line is all it means is simply including a template whenever you create a redirect page.

So for example, you want to redirect "U.S. Constitution" to "United States Constitution". On the page of the former, you would normally put:

#REDIRECT [[United States Constitution]]

If you do what I'm saying, the only difference would be:

#REDIRECT [[United States Constitution]]{{R from alternative name}}

I hardly call that "over-organizing everything". --John James 10:30, 16 April 2011 (MSD)

Sorry for any misunderstandings, friend, but I'll take the bottom line from the article itself - "Most redirects should not be categorized." I think creating content is more necessary than this. Pestergaines 02:16, 18 April 2011 (MSD)

Read the rest of that section and the one that directly follows it:

There are some situations where categorizing a redirect is acceptable and can be helpful to users browsing through categories. The following are examples of some of these situations:
==Categories just for redirects==
These categories are only intended to contain redirects...

I admit the sentence you quoted is misleading as it is written. What is meant by that is that most redirects should not be categorized into normal categories (i.e. categories that contain actual articles).

If you continue reading, you'll see that it is not the nature of the redirect that determines "whether or not it should be categorized"...but rather the nature of the category that determines whether it should be included on the redirected page. In other words, ideally, every redirect should be included in at least one category...but most redirects should not be added to normal article categories.

And I think it is misleading and disingenuous to say something like "I think creating content is more necessary than this." I believe that is a cheap shot that could be arbitrarily used to trump essentially any other aspect of an encyclopedia. I could easily argue the same thing against using redirects at all.

Just because the content is what is most visible and is ultimately the reason for the site, it does not mean that the other aspects that make the site as organized and accessible as it can be are to be disregarded. --John James 06:37, 18 April 2011 (MSD)

John, what is the purpose of categorizing redirects in redirect-only categories? "Wikipedia does it, therefore so should we" is not an argument that will convince me. I have looked at the pages of WP's Redirect Wikiproject, and don't see any explanation. What practical benefit(s) do you envision? --Forgottenman (talk) 17:35, 18 April 2011 (MSD)
I had forgotten about this discussion. Sorry for the delay. You can see how this question was addressed at the Wikipedia here and here (and I'm sure plenty of other places).
The purpose of categorizing redirects in this way is, for one, it allows for easy identification (by humans and software) of unprintworthy redirects. This is useful because in the course of creating a useful wiki encyclopedia, a lot of redirects can be created that would not be useful, or would be confusing in a print version. And I'm assuming a print version was envisioned, as we have a special:book option already, and it does seem completely consistent with the LvMI mission to disseminate information as much as possible.
Having redirects placed in categories that describe what kind of redirect they are makes it very easy not only to identify which redirects should be included in various versions of the encyclopedia, but also very easy to change which redirects would be included. It's a way to allow software to understand the redirect information. A lot like microformatting. When you have a way for software to understand what it's reading, it enables you to do...well almost anything.
Also, it is sometimes considered helpful to put redirects into the same categories as their targets, which allows the names of both the redirect and the target to appear in the category. Tagging redirects as they are created makes this a smooth process. And for pages which should ultimately be handled by a full article, a {{R with possibilities}} can be added (along with one or more stub sorting templates), to draw attention to the title so that it might be fleshed out into an independent article.
There's plenty of other reasons that you can find fleshed out in the Wikipedia discussions linked above, but I think any one of these is sufficient to justify the effort of simply adding a template whenever you create a redirect. It's just a useful habit to get into, and I don't see anything wrong with having it at least be suggestion, if not a general best practices guideline.
Again, all we're talking about is the difference between:
#REDIRECT [[United States Constitution]]
#REDIRECT [[United States Constitution]]{{R from alternative name}} --John James 05:24, 10 May 2011 (MSD)


Hallo all,

the 5th of May means that six months have passed since the official opening of the Mises Wiki. The wiki is beautifully growing in quality and quantity (as of now it has 666 pages) and it seems to have found its userbase. I hope it will continue to grow even more.

A big thanks to you all and everyone that has contributed!

Pestergaines 19:44, 5 May 2011 (MSD)


Someone was kind enough to create a page for Typos in mises.org publications. This is a little announcement so it doesn't get lost among all the recent changes. We may change the page a bit around, but I think it is a good idea. Thoughts? Pestergaines 17:41, 7 May 2011 (MSD)

I think it's a good idea. I also agree with the move to an internal page. --John James 05:26, 10 May 2011 (MSD)

Important question regarding copyright

See MisesWiki talk:Copyrights --John James 05:44, 10 May 2011 (MSD)

What's the deal with this page?

Achieving Freedom/2 --John James 13:42, 13 May 2011 (MSD)

It's a chapter of a book called Achieving Freedom. A few months ago a user copied a lot of book content here but didn't finish. The type of books we include here in full text is an open question (the author of these books is not particularly notable), so that chapter has been "hanging out" lately. --Forgottenman (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2011 (MSD)

Country information: Call for Opinions

What information should be included in the infobox of countries? John James has kindly started developing a new infobox with all the info one might need - see e.g. the United States for a full demo.

The new infobox looks much better than the old one, the question is now - what should be in it, and what can be left out? Unemployment is still missing; some parts like the Date Format can be probably left out.

So, what do we need? Discussion welcome! Pestergaines 15:52, 23 May 2011 (MSD)

Is there any objection to simply using the info from the Wikipedia pages? There is essentially nothing about them that could fall under any sort of copyright restriction, as it's just data. So if we decide we want to leave things out or add things, that's perfectly fine, but it's obviously easier to start with a base than to build from scratch, and it's certainly easier to simply leave things out than to have to source, add, and cite the exact same info that is already sourced for us from the exact same sources (e.g. the CIA World Factbook...which, just fyi, is not the World "Facebook" as it says on all the old country templates. ;-))
If we take advantage of this and don't Charlie-Van-Doren ourselves into redoing work that doesn't need to be done, the migration can move quite quickly. Anything that isn't included already can easily be added. If you'd like to discuss exactly how you'd like unemployment displayed and we make a decision on that I can add a space and proper syntax for it in the template. Anything else you'd like added as well. --John James 17:46, 23 May 2011 (MSD)
One reason to do the boxes as they were was exactly the uncertainty about possible copyright restrictions. If that's no problem, then perfect - let's take what they've got! :)
The other reason, though, was that I wanted to do something different from Wikipedia, not simply take over stuff. I don't want the wiki to be a copycat, but to have a distinct style and focus. (Hence the indices, which, while far from perfect, hint something about the free-market tendencies of a country; on the other hand, the 'Human Development Index' index and the Gini are rather suspect; Global Integrity looks rather interesting, though. Good find!) Thinking of that, we forgot Life Expectancy, which is a good hint about the quality of life.
Let's get some specifics: Life Expectancy can go right to the Population; Unemployment as well. Most of the following can be skipped, wouldn't mind discussion on it though:
  • Official language(s)
  • National language
  • Demonym
  • Time zone
  • Date formats
  • Drives on the
  • Internet TLD
  • Calling code
I'm more on the minimalist side, you want to take over much of the information the Wikipedia offers. We knew that, I'm hoping for others to enter the debate as well, to get more ideas. Anyone out there? Pestergaines 13:29, 25 May 2011 (MSD)
I wouldn't say I "want to take over much of the information the Wikipedia offers"...I'm just saying we should do what Tucker talks about here and here and take what has already been done and improve and build upon that...learn from it and emulate what we like and discard or change what we don't...as opposed to reinventing the wheel. I'm actually with you on a more focused (I wouldn't say "minimalist") approach to the contents of this project (at least in these early stages). But that doesn't mean I think we need to build everything from scratch just because there's more info available than we'd like to include. I don't know about you but I would much rather strip things away from a mountain of work already done than to have to create from essentially nothing.
I don't mind taking those things out of the infobox, it was just an example of what's available. --John James 20:29, 25 May 2011 (MSD)

I agree that we should improve the focus. For example, in the US infobox, I would definitely want to remove:

  • Demonym
  • Date format
  • Drives on the
  • Internet TLD
  • Calling code
  • Time zone

I would probably want to remove:

Life expectancy is a good addition, as are other indexes of quality of life (that are compatible with a libertarian perspective... i.e., not Gini). --Forgottenman (talk) 19:37, 2 June 2011 (MSD)

Okay, let's remove this info and see how it looks like. Any other opinions out there? There are more than three users in here. :) Pestergaines 01:36, 22 June 2011 (MSD)

If you count the guy who keeps editing the Criticisms of FracRes banking page, that makes four ;) --John James 03:32, 22 June 2011 (MSD)
Yeah, we should do something to reinvigorate the user base... Pestergaines 12:46, 22 June 2011 (MSD)
I think a reinvigorated admin base would be nice first. --John James 12:59, 22 June 2011 (MSD)
Please be more specific. Pestergaines 14:22, 22 June 2011 (MSD)
Doesn't seem to be much support/interest from the powers that be, that's all. --John James 15:39, 22 June 2011 (MSD)
Ah, you mean the Mises Institute folks? They have a lot on their plate and don't attend to the wiki that much - beyond some generous publicity. They more or less installed the software and let us work on it, lesser obscure errors don't seem to provide that much motivation to intervene. I guess for them it's yet another project and we'll have to prove the importance of the wiki (or just badger them enough ;) ). (In cases of issues with a somewhat distant support chain, I find it useful to have the solution at hand, or at least a good idea of where the problem lies and what should be fixed. Help is then much more likely to be forthcoming.) Pestergaines 16:37, 22 June 2011 (MSD)
I've posted multiple things on the listserv with barely a response. If at least one of us three who basically maintain the wiki had access to the web server it would be much easier to address code issues. I think the image issue is one of the most pressing and really limits the wiki. --John James 17:03, 22 June 2011 (MSD)
Poked the list with a possible solution, let's see about the response. Pestergaines 17:51, 22 June 2011 (MSD)
That's a good link you sent; I asked Israel to try one of its suggestions, so we'll see what happens. --Forgottenman (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2011 (MSD)

Reading lists

Somebody started a list of Books on hyperinflation. Given that commendable effort, there is now also a category for reading lists. Let there be more! Pestergaines 01:44, 16 June 2011 (MSD)

new templates

Created a couple of templates to standardize the presentation of Mises Daily/Blog links in the Links section of articles. They're both basically the same thing, just for the respective parts of the site:

--John James 11:12, 22 June 2011 (MSD)


And now we are at 800 articles. Excellent! Pestergaines 03:32, 6 July 2011 (MSD)

Offline wiki

I've been looking for a suitable tool to download a wiki and use it offline on a phone. There are several tools for Wikipedia, but having something that would allow you to choose a wiki of your own seemed to be impossible (or at least too difficult to use). But now I've found one for Android! In case anybody is interested:

  1. Make an export of all pages of the wiki you want to have.
  2. Convert the XML file with the conversion tool found on this page.
  3. Copy the resulting files into the main directory of the SDcard.
  4. Get the "Leo's Wikipedia Reader for Android" app and run it.

The app seems to work adequately overall. Crashed a few times after clicking on links of missing pages. Also seems to have a problem when linking to pages with an apostrophe.

All in all it's pretty fun, though. Let me know if you try it out! Pestergaines 02:10, 8 July 2011 (MSD)

Preview page problem gone?

I just got a nicely-working Preview page, tried in two browsers. Please check if it works for you!

In other news, I was finally able to reach Israel with Jeffrey's help; he was swamped with other issues the last few weeks and is busy still, but at least he's aware of our plight - and it seems he's fixed the biggest one already. Pestergaines 15:29, 21 July 2011 (MSD)

Yes, it's gone for me too – great! --Forgottenman (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2011 (MSD)

MisesWiki:Featured article candidates

MisesWiki:Featured article candidates is now live. I've nominated one article; feel free to nominate others. --Forgottenman (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2011 (MSD)

Call to Action: Intellectual Property

I've started an initiative to drive more new content. Since on occasion people complain that they don't know what to focus on, here goes:

Intellectual Property!

That should attract some attention. :)

Please forward to interested parties. I hope it will also evoke more interest in our contest. Pestergaines 17:11, 7 September 2011 (MSD)

To anyone just joining the discussion: The contest is over; Matthew won. Nathan Larson 03:31, 9 July 2012 (MSD)


Anybody here from Dallas? I hear there's a great divorce lawyer there! There are things you'd never know if it wasn't for the daily dose of spam. :) Pestergaines 14:49, 17 October 2011 (MSD)

Groups and organizations

What are/should be the criteria for inclusion of a group on a topical page? There are some pages dedicated specifically to this (Meetups, for example), but what about other groups? I'm thinking of this one in particular - how many members should a group have and how renown should it be to be "notable"? Pestergaines 20:50, 29 November 2011 (MSK)

That's a really good question. I think we could definitely use Wikipedia as a guide, but obviously our policies here are purposefully a bit different. However I'm not completely sure where/what the relevant guideline page(s) might be. I don't have time to search at this moment, but I'll look into it at some point. I think that would be a good place to start, as again in keeping with my inventing the wheel point above, it's easier to imitate than to innovate. --John James 17:11, 2 December 2011 (MSK)

Happy Holidays

Hi everyone, I found myself for holidays in a location without Internet, but you can handle things very nicely (and I'll chip in when possible). Just wanted to say everyone a huge Thank You for all your contributions and I hope you will continue to be a part of the Mises Wiki - and that it will achieve much more in the next year(s)!

Merry Christmas and everything! Pestergaines 22:55, 21 December 2011 (MSK)