Lilburne thanks for popping up on the wiki talk page, i made a comment under yours, complaining that my new edits were killed.
They are some committed Keynesian’s drones guarding the page who are desparate to protect Krugman’s reputation. They won’t even allow Krugman’s own statements onto the page!!
Yes I am completely serious. The internet is serious business.
Wikipedia is about the political power of editors, not the capacity for anyone to edit information in real-time.
Bureaucratization is why it will become increasingly irrelevant. There are other, less moderated fronts to fight on.
Did I write that?
I moderate several forums. I have owned my own forum for 4 years. If anyone on the internet, has an idea of what the term trolling truly means, it is me. And you sir, are trolling because you have yet to challenge me accurately, and yet you persist in jacking this thread.
I’m ready to admit my errors if you can actually find an error in what I have written. Take it back to where you have quoted me from. Re-read what I wrote, and ask a valid question.
This.
Point taken.
The claim that Wikipedia.org – one of the most trafficked websites – will be a “relic” in 5 years is very extreme. I would like to see you attempt to elaborate that claim.
I can use help on the talkpage…
this one “LK” guy is a total Keynesian and is blocking everything.
Well, you can edit it in real time…and the thought police will delete your edits in real time too.
Indeed. That’s one reason why Wikipedia is on the fast track to irrelevance. People think Wikipedia enables the dissemination of information, but what it actually does is control the dissemination of information. Very little content on Wikipedia is original.
I can tell you it’s outmoded system for two reasons
The revision system is crap. Being a programmer I’ve dealt with better revision systems, I don’t get why the fuck the owner of the Wikimedia conglom can’t get a better team of coders together to make something on par.
The editors are gods defacto on the Wikipedia. So if you tick them off outside of the wiki articles I can promise you that your contributions will get deleted regardless of quality or content.
I can’t believe he actually deleted critical stuff from the talk page. I just clicked on his name. He’s a Harvard-trained economist and he went to Berkeley for undergrad. That alone explains his behavior a bit. But the following from his “editor” page also shows why he would have an anti-Austrian bent (emphasis added):
Hi there!
Thanks for visiting my user page. If you like, you can leave me a message on my talk page.
I am a professional economist and an amateur computer geek. I’ve been sporadically contributing to Wikipedia since 2005. When editing, I like improving presentation and clarity, and making sure that pages are balanced and adequately represent mainstream academic thought. I’m available to answer any questions you may have about economics.
He’s saying the “Mises blog” is not a reputable source. That is not true at all, and besides the articles aren’t blog posts.
I posted the following:
LK, my articles are not part of the Mises blog. They are “Daily Articles” which are part of the main Mises Institute web site. These articles are not posted by individual bloggers. Each article is edited and discussed between the author and the editors before being posted. Each article is planned several days in advance of posting.
Again, my second article[20] includes a detailed exegesis of Krugman’s quote. It is highly relevant to a matter that is has been intensely discussed regarding Krugman. The quotes are a two-sided issue: “did he call for a bubble or not?” The article now presents one side’s argument regarding the issue (Krugman’s own explanation). In all fairness it ought to include the other side’s argument as well. My article is currently the most complete statement of that side. By not including it, the Krugman article is currently very biased on the issue. I ardently hope you reconsider this matter. –Lilburne2 (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I see that the answer to my question of “Do you understand Wikipedia.org whatsoever?” is “No.”. The content on Wikipedia.org is not supposed to be original:
Hey do you have a source proving what you say ?
Not always.
I respectfully acknowledge your concession of that particular point.
I’ve conceded nothing. Your last claim was a lie.
But if that is how you prefer to build your arguments, knock yourself out.
Ah, I see. So, do you believe that the link that I provided was an illusion?
I believe your claim that I “do not know anything about Wikipedia whatsoever” is a lie. It is a lie, because I have run Mediawiki on other websites, I regularly make use of Wikimedia Commons and Wikileaks, I have multiple edits on Wikipedia proper, and I have downloaded the Wikipedia database and used it in content mashups.
So when you say I “do not know anything” “whatsoever”, that is a lie. It’s not a lie because I do know quite a bit about Wikipedia, it’s a lie because you don’t know otherwise. To claim I know nothing, only serves to prove your ignornace.
