User talk:94.75.220.77

If you are actually interested in improving the content of the article, engage us in a conversation on the talk page. We don't bite. But random editorial asides with meta-comments about the site and its community will just be reverted instantly. Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

It's okay. We were just having a discussion of this site, on whether or not it is possible to change your wrong conclusions about a certain subject. From my perspective I added information to the page, that a statement was unfounded. It was not a random comment, which should be obvious. If you are interested in improving the page you should not delete the information but, if you have a problem with how it was presented, change it. --94.75.220.77 (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:WP:Point is not a way to constructively deal with article content. By its very nature its disruptive to prove a "point" as you just described. These articles are constructed through collaborative efforts, and if you wish to legitimately improve the article you need to work collaboratively with us. If, however, this is merely about whipping out the tape measure to see whose is bigger we haven't really lost anything. While not completely relevant our FAQ at RationalWiki:Guide for individuals or companies we cover can aid you or anyone else that wants to have a real effect on content. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not so sure my comments fit in with the WP type of comments. But, if you believe that my comments were unconstructive, let's begin here. I gather that the measure of them being constructive or not is whether or not they either directly contribute to new information for the site (which they did) or presented building blocks for further editing by someone else which one the whole contributed with new information, relevant for the readers. All at the same time as they are written in a way that conforms with the communitys norms so that they wouldn't tire other contributors from editing. That is, that the editing helps the overall research. Now whether or not my comments really were unconstructive is dependent on whether or not this site would benefit from more information being added to it by others who would edit something different but still bring up a new piece of information. Or if it is better that all such comments are deleted. Well, I cannot possible know that one is better than the other, but I suspect that the one system which allows more correct information to be published and correct wrong information easier would be better. It would thus be better, in my case, that the information would stand (which would send a signal to the reader that the rest of the article could also be of dubious value) or that someone else simply deleted the incorrect sentences.

But, of course, I could be missing something important about a rule with a community which I'm not a part of. But it could also be that if you base this rule on something that has its origin in the original Wikipedia, there is also a possibility that the rule is misplaced. As this community is really different from the much larger and diverse community of Wikipedia.

But, anyway. What you may lose is knowledge, which is a loss for us all.

Even so, I do not have any desire to join this community - mainly because you, if I may include you in that group, are really misguided about economics. For instance read the article on "Externality" - "The negative examples are the most common, usually dealing with pollution on neighboring populations." According to what measure of willingness to pay to not suffer an externality (or enjoy one), to which calculation in what country done by which economist? This comment seems to have come from someone who only reads about the discussion of externalities where mostly negative ones are discussed and therefore concluded that those also are the most common. That is my guess anyway. "This is one instance where all economists, even the strongest pro-capitalism ones, will agree that government should step in and redistribute the costs in order to keep the economy running at maximum efficiency." True in a sortish way, since almost all economists believe that governments should enforce the law, which would mean that for all economists that are utilitarian in the policy-prescription, it necessarily means that government should do something with the laws, even though it is only to uphold the existing laws and let the externality continue. But there are some economists who do not believe that the government should do anything at all but vanish, such as David Friedman who has written a fairly decent amount on this subject, and formulated his own, more extensive rule on how society should judge whether or not a rule should be changed to better deal with externalities (see here).

And also because you are so full of yourselves and create obvious blinders for your own ideology. From the externality-page: "This concept is very easy to understand if you're not a Libertarian and think everyone should just stop whining." No one community that is aware of reality tunnels and increases the difficulty by which they can change their own blinders, where it is not inevitable it will happen, could be classified as of right mind. --94.75.220.253 (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Um...nothing actually gets lost on a Wiki...there's a historical record of everything that gets written and deleted. In any case, making comments inside of an article and not on a talk page?  Bad form. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Um...nothing actually gets lost on a Wiki...there's a historical record of everything that gets written and deleted. In any case, making comments inside of an article and not on a talk page?  Bad form. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Um...nothing actually gets lost on a Wiki...there's a historical record of everything that gets written and deleted. In any case, making comments inside of an article and not on a talk page?  Bad form. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)