And then happened, what had to happen: Austrian Economics Wiki has been migrated to Mises Wiki.
I have explained the reasons in other places, suffice to say, that the behavior of Wikia repulsed many users, and the possibility of working with the Mises Institute was simply too attractive.
So there it goes - good luck, Mises Wiki!
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
On Countries
There have been quite a few positive developments in the mean time, and several honorary mentions of the wiki - not least thanks to a Mises.org mention. Still encouraging. :)
Most recent was my drive to create country pages for every single country out there. This has been now finished, and a few (Greece, Iceland) were expanded some more to show what the pages are good for - hopefully attracting more editors! And, with some 200 countries has the wiki jumped to over three hundred pages!
A lot has been done, there is still a lot to do, but good news all around. That's the message for today.
Most recent was my drive to create country pages for every single country out there. This has been now finished, and a few (Greece, Iceland) were expanded some more to show what the pages are good for - hopefully attracting more editors! And, with some 200 countries has the wiki jumped to over three hundred pages!
A lot has been done, there is still a lot to do, but good news all around. That's the message for today.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Wiki on Mises.org!
Speaking of major breakthroughs: the wiki has just been featured on the Mises Economics Blog!
I am in shock and amazed. :)
I am in shock and amazed. :)
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Wiki has over 100 posts
Finally, a major goal has been reached: over 100 wiki pages on the Austrian Economics Wiki.
It took much longer than I've expected, and could be probably done faster, but I wanted to give it due attention (which is not easy with all the procrastinating). There are still many imperfect pages, which may be improved, one day.
For now though, I need a break from the wiki pages, but will try to propagandize it a little. Go Wiki!
---
Just for the information, here are a few statistics after the 100 goal - and for comparision, in parenthesis also the stats from the 'Economics Wiki', which has been around longer, but is far less focused - on the other hand, it had way more than one contributor:
Total posts: 102 (400)
Size of the database: 619.1 KB (786.8 KB)
Words: 89.4 K (97.7 K)
External links: 551 (305)
Created in 2005, the Economics Wiki has somewhat more content, but it's not all that much considering that it has many more pages (so mine are bigger!). It has also minimally changed over the last few years. There are way more external links in Austrian Economics Wiki. I didn't even compare images, where the other wiki wins, hands down.
But all in all, a year's worth of work by one person comes quite close to five years of erratic work by a few dozen editors. It all can be done, if one wants to!
It took much longer than I've expected, and could be probably done faster, but I wanted to give it due attention (which is not easy with all the procrastinating). There are still many imperfect pages, which may be improved, one day.
For now though, I need a break from the wiki pages, but will try to propagandize it a little. Go Wiki!
---
Just for the information, here are a few statistics after the 100 goal - and for comparision, in parenthesis also the stats from the 'Economics Wiki', which has been around longer, but is far less focused - on the other hand, it had way more than one contributor:
Total posts: 102 (400)
Size of the database: 619.1 KB (786.8 KB)
Words: 89.4 K (97.7 K)
External links: 551 (305)
Created in 2005, the Economics Wiki has somewhat more content, but it's not all that much considering that it has many more pages (so mine are bigger!). It has also minimally changed over the last few years. There are way more external links in Austrian Economics Wiki. I didn't even compare images, where the other wiki wins, hands down.
But all in all, a year's worth of work by one person comes quite close to five years of erratic work by a few dozen editors. It all can be done, if one wants to!
Sunday, May 9, 2010
On scurvy and scientific regress
Courtesy of the Mises.org Blog, read the article named "Scott and Scurvy".
With the specific example of scurvy, it is shown how a perfectly working and proven cure can be forgotten and how a series of wrong, but plausibly seeming theories needs to be overcome before the right one is discovered. For a much more recent example, note the causes of ulcers. Or see the example on freezing water.
Not to blame the medicine (or other sciences), it can be pointed out, that less than a century ago it was full of what we can consider today quacks and charlatans, some of them great authorities and scientists. And wrong concepts can easily survive even today. Luckily, medicine has tools and methods, which it can use to improve it chances to find better answers and recognize the wrong answers - note that they are chances, no guarantees.
Medicine may not be a very exact science, with much reserved for the individual reactions and special features of different organisms, but it can conduct experiments and trials and so analyse its theories - and these experiments have some validity. But in the science of economics, there are no such experiments available. There are no laboratories, and the results of repeated 'experiments' will necessarily differ, since the starting conditions will be different and the people will behave differently. (This is not even to speak of other motivations to pursue specific theories...)
To put it short, economics can be easily full of quacks and charlatans even today.
With the specific example of scurvy, it is shown how a perfectly working and proven cure can be forgotten and how a series of wrong, but plausibly seeming theories needs to be overcome before the right one is discovered. For a much more recent example, note the causes of ulcers. Or see the example on freezing water.
Not to blame the medicine (or other sciences), it can be pointed out, that less than a century ago it was full of what we can consider today quacks and charlatans, some of them great authorities and scientists. And wrong concepts can easily survive even today. Luckily, medicine has tools and methods, which it can use to improve it chances to find better answers and recognize the wrong answers - note that they are chances, no guarantees.
Medicine may not be a very exact science, with much reserved for the individual reactions and special features of different organisms, but it can conduct experiments and trials and so analyse its theories - and these experiments have some validity. But in the science of economics, there are no such experiments available. There are no laboratories, and the results of repeated 'experiments' will necessarily differ, since the starting conditions will be different and the people will behave differently. (This is not even to speak of other motivations to pursue specific theories...)
To put it short, economics can be easily full of quacks and charlatans even today.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
On Father's Dilemma
This is a repost from here. A friend mentioned a dilemma from his father with the ideas of freedom. Put shortly, imagine a valley cut off from the rest of the world, and there is only one location possible to build a bridge. What if nobody doesn't get around to building one, due to disagreements or other reasons? And what if someone does, but abuses the exclusive position (a 'natural monopoly')?
The hypothetical dilemma has several weaknesses that we have already talked about, but let's take it by itself.
Ultimately, there is no way for you to get everything you want.
And sometimes, you don't get things which you REALLY want or need, even things every single person in the world would say you deserve. That's not free market, that's life.
What can be said about the free market, or voluntary cooperation, if you want, is, that it motivates people to meet the needs of other people. If there are hard to reach parts of the world, with people wanting to reach them or be reached, there is profit to be made by connecting them to civilization. If one way seems unreachable, there is profit in devising alternatives (for the mountain valley, there are planes, helicopters, even cable cars - or build a tunnel). If the expense to build that bridge is too high, one can turn to charity of other people to help funding it. If there is disagreement, or people acting as assholes, there are voluntary ways to exercise social pressure to guide them to reason. But we've been through this.
Value is subjective, so there is no real way to compare the needs of different people (except by saying "I like this more!"). What if someone wants to use that crucial piece of property for another purpose? Is your goal more important than his? What if by building bridges and roads into every inaccessible corner of the world requires the resources, that would be needed to create a Cure for Cancer? (See, you can beat one crass hypothetical example by another. :) )
Without being cruel, one could say, that maybe those people in that remote valley don't deserve that bridge. If they can't make it on their own, nor can those most inclined, then perhaps the time has not come yet. "Society" is not wealthy enough to afford it yet.
You can't get everything you want by voluntary means. You can't get everything by involuntary means either. But let's say, you can get this one thing, this time, without too much violence. Somebody would have to pay for it, of course. But you would be better off, so why not?
If this is acceptable to you, the question is, what becomes of the precedent? If you force other people in person, even if you don't become an outlaw, somebody else may get the same idea and start forcing other people. If there is an institution you persuaded or created to force others, somebody else will try to convince them, too - and there is absolutely no lack of good intentions out there.
You have chosen to force other people to improve your own life. What if somebody else starts forcing you to improve their life? Maybe it will be a small inconvenience. Maybe they'll ruin your existence.
So let me turn the dilemma on its head. You wanted to be better off. What if somebody makes you worse off, in the name of the same grand ideas? How can you defend yourself from an infinite number of people eager to change your life, because they need something, too! You have already agreed to it in principle.
---
What do other folks think? The essence if the dilemma is this: people want many things, and sooner or later will want something, that the free market, or voluntary cooperation can't provide (or not in the way they want, or not quickly enough, you get it). Why shouldn't they turn to force, and what happens if they do?
The hypothetical dilemma has several weaknesses that we have already talked about, but let's take it by itself.
Ultimately, there is no way for you to get everything you want.
And sometimes, you don't get things which you REALLY want or need, even things every single person in the world would say you deserve. That's not free market, that's life.
What can be said about the free market, or voluntary cooperation, if you want, is, that it motivates people to meet the needs of other people. If there are hard to reach parts of the world, with people wanting to reach them or be reached, there is profit to be made by connecting them to civilization. If one way seems unreachable, there is profit in devising alternatives (for the mountain valley, there are planes, helicopters, even cable cars - or build a tunnel). If the expense to build that bridge is too high, one can turn to charity of other people to help funding it. If there is disagreement, or people acting as assholes, there are voluntary ways to exercise social pressure to guide them to reason. But we've been through this.
Value is subjective, so there is no real way to compare the needs of different people (except by saying "I like this more!"). What if someone wants to use that crucial piece of property for another purpose? Is your goal more important than his? What if by building bridges and roads into every inaccessible corner of the world requires the resources, that would be needed to create a Cure for Cancer? (See, you can beat one crass hypothetical example by another. :) )
Without being cruel, one could say, that maybe those people in that remote valley don't deserve that bridge. If they can't make it on their own, nor can those most inclined, then perhaps the time has not come yet. "Society" is not wealthy enough to afford it yet.
You can't get everything you want by voluntary means. You can't get everything by involuntary means either. But let's say, you can get this one thing, this time, without too much violence. Somebody would have to pay for it, of course. But you would be better off, so why not?
If this is acceptable to you, the question is, what becomes of the precedent? If you force other people in person, even if you don't become an outlaw, somebody else may get the same idea and start forcing other people. If there is an institution you persuaded or created to force others, somebody else will try to convince them, too - and there is absolutely no lack of good intentions out there.
You have chosen to force other people to improve your own life. What if somebody else starts forcing you to improve their life? Maybe it will be a small inconvenience. Maybe they'll ruin your existence.
So let me turn the dilemma on its head. You wanted to be better off. What if somebody makes you worse off, in the name of the same grand ideas? How can you defend yourself from an infinite number of people eager to change your life, because they need something, too! You have already agreed to it in principle.
---
What do other folks think? The essence if the dilemma is this: people want many things, and sooner or later will want something, that the free market, or voluntary cooperation can't provide (or not in the way they want, or not quickly enough, you get it). Why shouldn't they turn to force, and what happens if they do?
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Happy New Year!
Well, it was the time anyway.
This year, I shall continue to work on the wiki and have some Big Plans for its expansion. One is to have at least 100 article pages (Stubs count, too, but have to have decent size... like most of the already existing Stubs). As that isn't as hard, I have another plan - but that shall not be revealed, not yet at least. Might take a few months to get there.
The wiki has been quoted in a few blog posts in the mean time, so it is slowly acquiring some notoriety. Making it more popular is a general plan as well.
But the real reason why I'm writing here is, that someone has just updated a page and created another... page with the name "Cashola" and the content "money as zeke percieves it". Simple vandalism, was deleted immediately.
But do you, my non-existent readers, understand what it means? The wiki is finally known enough to be vandalized! Woot!
This year, I shall continue to work on the wiki and have some Big Plans for its expansion. One is to have at least 100 article pages (Stubs count, too, but have to have decent size... like most of the already existing Stubs). As that isn't as hard, I have another plan - but that shall not be revealed, not yet at least. Might take a few months to get there.
The wiki has been quoted in a few blog posts in the mean time, so it is slowly acquiring some notoriety. Making it more popular is a general plan as well.
But the real reason why I'm writing here is, that someone has just updated a page and created another... page with the name "Cashola" and the content "money as zeke percieves it". Simple vandalism, was deleted immediately.
But do you, my non-existent readers, understand what it means? The wiki is finally known enough to be vandalized! Woot!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)