Lilburne should use his real name

[mookrit]

The Big Government apologists at the Paul Krugman wiki page don’t want to cite anything showing that Krugman called for a housing bubble because it’s not an authoritative source.

“Article written for Mises.org by unknown author won’t be accepted as a reliable source for WP:BLP article.”

Maybe Lilburne should use his real name, and Mark Thornton should also write an article about Krugman.

Alternatively, we could cite the Mark Thornton blog post, but that would probably be removed as well, simply because it’s a blog.

[wilderness]

Or they could simply quote Krugman himself unless Krugman is not an authoritative source on Krugman.

[liberty_student]

@Sukrit Sabhlok

The Big Government apologists at the Paul Krugman wiki page don’t want to cite anything showing that Krugman called for a housing bubble because it’s not an authoritative source.

They are big government apologists. Wikipedia editors are a joke. It is Wikipedia’s loss if critical information is excluded for superficial reasons.

@Sukrit Sabhlok

Maybe Lilburne should use his real name

Maybe some of us use a pseudonym because we value privacy and anonymity.

[Wilmot_of_Rochester]

@liberty student

@Sukrit Sabhlok

The Big Government apologists at the Paul Krugman wiki page don’t want to cite anything showing that Krugman called for a housing bubble because it’s not an authoritative source.

Who cares? They are big government apologists. Should lilburne give up his anonymity just to test your thesis that he might be able to get cited?

@Sukrit Sabhlok

Maybe Lilburne should use his real name

Maybe some of us use a pseudonym because privacy and anonymity is important to us.

Yes, everyone is a big government apologist.

If you aren’t a donating member of the Mises Institute, you’re a big government apologist.

I would agree with wikipedia on this. Using a non-citable source as a citation doesn’t specifically sound like a good idea to me. I’d even go so far as to say that internet articles in general shouldn’t really be cited sources - at least most of them.

[Juan]

little Rochester troll … lol.

[Juan]

I would agree with wikipedia on this.

Of course. Everything in wikitrash is sourced. And the sources are sourced as well. You see, the people who edit wikipedia all went to school.

So, as long as wikipedia’s articles have reliable sources, say, the graudian, NYT, huff puff, some gov’t press releases , all is well. That’s called ‘objectivity’ or something.

[liberty_student]

@Wilmot of Rochester

If you aren’t a donating member of the Mises Institute, you’re a big government apologist.

I don’t believe I wrote that. Nor do I believe I implied it.

Did I, or are you engaging in empty rhetoric?

@Wilmot of Rochester

I would agree with wikipedia on this. Using a non-citable source as a citation doesn’t specifically sound like a good idea to me. I’d even go so far as to say that internet articles in general shouldn’t really be cited sources - at least most of them.

In 5 years, Wikipedia will be a relic. It’s completely unimportant.

[Wilmot_of_Rochester]

@Juan

little Rochester troll … lol.

There has to be a new Godwin law for this.

If a poster disagrees with the majority of the board, he’s soon described as a troll, despite not fitting any definition of a troll whatsoever.

[Wilmot_of_Rochester]

@liberty student

@Wilmot of Rochester

If you aren’t a donating member of the Mises Institute, you’re a big government apologist.

I don’t believe I wrote that. Nor do I believe I implied it.

Did I, or are you engaging in empty rhetoric?

@Wilmot of Rochester

I would agree with wikipedia on this. Using a non-citable source as a citation doesn’t specifically sound like a good idea to me. I’d even go so far as to say that internet articles in general shouldn’t really be cited sources - at least most of them.

In 5 years, Wikipedia will be a relic. It’s completely unimportant.

So you don’t believe that anyone who questions the Mises Institute is a big government apologist?

EDIT:

Never mind, you already answered that with this,

@liberty student

I’d enjoy your perspective on Horowitz’s work. His attitude online is a big turnoff, and he comes off as one of these “economic science”-statist Austrians.

Steve Horowitz, a libertarian, doesn’t walk the gold standard line of the Mises Institute and he’s thus a statist.

[nirgrahamUK]

@Wilmot of Rochester

I would agree with wikipedia on this. Using a non-citable source as a citation doesn’t specifically sound like a good idea to me.

perhaps its a technical question, but what exactly does non-citable mean in this context?. they seem to me to be able to to cite it. lilburncontributed blah blah blah on such and such a date to mises.org under the auspices of J Tuckers editorship.

[Juan]

There has to be a new Godwin law for this.

Yes. What about the rochester law ? Since you went to school, you should be able to get a law named after you.

[Wilmot_of_Rochester]

@nirgrahamUK

@Wilmot of Rochester

I would agree with wikipedia on this. Using a non-citable source as a citation doesn’t specifically sound like a good idea to me.

perhaps its a technical question, but what exactly does non-citable mean in this context?. they seem to me to be able to to cite it. lilburncontributed blah blah blah on such and such a date to mises.org under the auspices of J Tuckers editorship.

Lilburne is not an author; it’s a pseudonym.

[liberty_student]

@Wilmot of Rochester

So you don’t believe that anyone who questions the Mises Institute is a big government apologist?

So it was empty rhetoric. As I thought.

[nirgrahamUK]

@Wilmot of Rochester

So you don’t believe that anyone who questions the Mises Institute is a big government apologist?

so, when did you stop being a big government apologist?

[nirgrahamUK]

@Wilmot of Rochester

Lilburne is not an author; it’s a pseudonym.

mark twain is not an author

[liberty_student]

@Wilmot of Rochester

Never mind, you already answered that with this,

@liberty student

I’d enjoy your perspective on Horowitz’s work. His attitude online is a big turnoff, and he comes off as one of these “economic science”-statist Austrians.

Steve Horowitz, a libertarian, doesn’t walk the gold standard line of the Mises Institute and he’s thus a statist.

My statement about Horowitz had nothing to do with gold or FRB.

Are you done making a fool of yourself today, or is there more?

[Wilmot_of_Rochester]

@nirgrahamUK

@Wilmot of Rochester

Lilburne is not an author; it’s a pseudonym.

mark twain is not an author

Mark Twain is a pen name, but a believable one.

Lilburne isn’t. If he were to post his biography as a professional and use a pen name, that would be fine. Otherwise, there’s still a difference.

[Wilmot_of_Rochester]

@liberty student

My statement about Horowitz had nothing to do with gold or FRB.

Are you done making a fool of yourself today, or is there more?

So what could it possibly have to do with?

[nirgrahamUK]

well so long as we aren’t going to make arguments about why anything is reasonable or not . what you say can pass.

[Lilburne]

Sukrit, It looks like you might have cited the Mises Blog post which reference the article, instead of the article itself. Mises Daily Article blog posts always have the author listed as “Mises.org Updates”. So maybe that’s why they’re complaining about an “unknown author”, and maybe they’d actually be okay with a one-word-name author if you cited the actual [article](http://Sukrit, It looks like you might have cited the Mises Blog post which reference the article, instead of the article itself. Mises Daily Article blog posts always have the author listed as “Mises.org Updates”. So maybe that’s why they’re complaining about an “unknown author”, and maybe they’d actually be okay with a one-word-name author if you cited the actual article (http//mises.org/daily/3539))?