![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
The following is an attempt at setting up a theory on the subject of Dollar Voting. I'm making this up as I go :). If I had had a website I would have put this there and put an external link to there in the article. Lacking that, this setup (with a link from the article to the talk page) seemed like a good alternative. However, now someone has removed that link....
The free market system can be regarded as akin to democracy, though applied to production ( economics) raher than politics, in that people use their money as a means to vote for a product, giving the producer an incentive to continue its production. This has come to be known as dollar voting although, of course, it works with any currency.
However, there are some differences between dollar voting and democracy:
But what the two systems have in common is that they work best if the voters/buyers are well informed and intelligent. And especially with dollar voting, ie the free market, things might change considerably with the Internet, especially concerning the first two points. Sites emerge that give complete (or so one may hope) overviews of all products in a certain category. And internet buying means that the location of a shop becomes almost irrelevant (except when it comes to shipping).
DirkvdM 09:31, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
I know, and I deliberately made that clear in the beginning. But it is in a way just a normal way to edit in Wikipedia taken further. Most of my edits are based on a general insight I have. I hardly ever look something up specifically before editing. I work with the 'knowledge' I have in my head, but I suppose that that goes for most people. And what is knowledge anyway? (I'm sorry, I've studied philosophy :) .)
But I must admit that I have crossed a line here. I suppose I should in this case read up on the subject and then synthesise an article from those findings. There are plenty of writings on the Internet on this. But the problem with those is that they also are though up by other people. Likewise, I can come up with a theory and then publish that here. As you point out, the rule is that one should only place non-original work in Wikipedia. So if I publish my theory and someone else (a friend?...) puts it here, it should be ok?
A better rule would be that what's in Wikipedia should be a synthesis of the most accepted theories. But then who is to moderate that?
I understand your criticism, I just mean to say it's not all that clear cut.
So now what? Should this be removed?
DirkvdM 12:08, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 11:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
At the free market talk page there is an old discussion that would be more in place here. In stead of moving it, I decided to place a link here. However, that is an archived part of the talk page, so any continuation of this should take place here. FYI. DirkvdM ( talk) 18:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Personal opinion WP:SOAPBOX comments |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I think it should be mentioned that "dollar-voting" is profoundly anti-democratic and in no way conducive to democracy, especially with today's massive wealth inequalities. It amounts to people like Bill Gates having more voting power than entire nations. Sorry if my comment is misplaced. WjtWeston ( talk) 05:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
|
Ran across this passage in the New Yorker...
From my perspective...this a pretty great description/example of the dollar voting concept. Anybody have any thoughts on whether it should be included in this entry? -- Xerographica ( talk) 18:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Does anybody have any objections to including this quote in this entry? -- Xerographica ( talk) 20:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I've tagged this article with the disputed template. At the very least, this article needs a thorough review by disinterested parties. It quite clearly violates Wiki guidelines on NPOV, and the documentation is pretty weak. Sarcastic Avenger ( talk) 12:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
The big majority of citations are from Robert Schenk, a professor at Saint Joseph's College (Indiana). He certainly knows a lot more about this than I, but he's lacking a WP article (which would bolster his reliability). If he is published in other, more established economic texts then he should qualify as WP:RS even though the cited material here is a WP:BLOGS. While I have your attention, please note Schenk uses the term consumer sovereignty. Maybe the best way to handle this article is to incorporate Schenk's material into the CS article and create a redirect.-- S. Rich ( talk) 23:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Can anybody please explain why reliable sources were removed from this entry? Along the same lines...why was Mises removed from this entry? -- Xerographica ( talk) 01:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
We appear to have the same problem over at the foot voting article. I'm starting to wonder if there is a basic misunderstanding as to what an encyclopedia actually is at work here, and if WP:COMPETENCE isn't an issue. Volunteer Marek 03:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
This topic is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. The section or sections that need attention may be noted in a message below. |
See tag on article page. SPECIFICO talk 17:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This page was
proposed for deletion by
Rui Gabriel Correia (
talk ·
contribs) in the past with the comment: Makes no sense at all. Article started off as somethimng else, now the intro suggests it is something akin to public budgets, the next section swutches over to consumers. No sources. It was contested by Kvng ( talk · contribs) on 2017-09-26 with the comment: Makes enough sense that I could improve and find refs for this and I will. I assume others could too. |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
The following is an attempt at setting up a theory on the subject of Dollar Voting. I'm making this up as I go :). If I had had a website I would have put this there and put an external link to there in the article. Lacking that, this setup (with a link from the article to the talk page) seemed like a good alternative. However, now someone has removed that link....
The free market system can be regarded as akin to democracy, though applied to production ( economics) raher than politics, in that people use their money as a means to vote for a product, giving the producer an incentive to continue its production. This has come to be known as dollar voting although, of course, it works with any currency.
However, there are some differences between dollar voting and democracy:
But what the two systems have in common is that they work best if the voters/buyers are well informed and intelligent. And especially with dollar voting, ie the free market, things might change considerably with the Internet, especially concerning the first two points. Sites emerge that give complete (or so one may hope) overviews of all products in a certain category. And internet buying means that the location of a shop becomes almost irrelevant (except when it comes to shipping).
DirkvdM 09:31, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
I know, and I deliberately made that clear in the beginning. But it is in a way just a normal way to edit in Wikipedia taken further. Most of my edits are based on a general insight I have. I hardly ever look something up specifically before editing. I work with the 'knowledge' I have in my head, but I suppose that that goes for most people. And what is knowledge anyway? (I'm sorry, I've studied philosophy :) .)
But I must admit that I have crossed a line here. I suppose I should in this case read up on the subject and then synthesise an article from those findings. There are plenty of writings on the Internet on this. But the problem with those is that they also are though up by other people. Likewise, I can come up with a theory and then publish that here. As you point out, the rule is that one should only place non-original work in Wikipedia. So if I publish my theory and someone else (a friend?...) puts it here, it should be ok?
A better rule would be that what's in Wikipedia should be a synthesis of the most accepted theories. But then who is to moderate that?
I understand your criticism, I just mean to say it's not all that clear cut.
So now what? Should this be removed?
DirkvdM 12:08, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 11:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
At the free market talk page there is an old discussion that would be more in place here. In stead of moving it, I decided to place a link here. However, that is an archived part of the talk page, so any continuation of this should take place here. FYI. DirkvdM ( talk) 18:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Personal opinion WP:SOAPBOX comments |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I think it should be mentioned that "dollar-voting" is profoundly anti-democratic and in no way conducive to democracy, especially with today's massive wealth inequalities. It amounts to people like Bill Gates having more voting power than entire nations. Sorry if my comment is misplaced. WjtWeston ( talk) 05:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
|
Ran across this passage in the New Yorker...
From my perspective...this a pretty great description/example of the dollar voting concept. Anybody have any thoughts on whether it should be included in this entry? -- Xerographica ( talk) 18:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Does anybody have any objections to including this quote in this entry? -- Xerographica ( talk) 20:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I've tagged this article with the disputed template. At the very least, this article needs a thorough review by disinterested parties. It quite clearly violates Wiki guidelines on NPOV, and the documentation is pretty weak. Sarcastic Avenger ( talk) 12:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
The big majority of citations are from Robert Schenk, a professor at Saint Joseph's College (Indiana). He certainly knows a lot more about this than I, but he's lacking a WP article (which would bolster his reliability). If he is published in other, more established economic texts then he should qualify as WP:RS even though the cited material here is a WP:BLOGS. While I have your attention, please note Schenk uses the term consumer sovereignty. Maybe the best way to handle this article is to incorporate Schenk's material into the CS article and create a redirect.-- S. Rich ( talk) 23:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Can anybody please explain why reliable sources were removed from this entry? Along the same lines...why was Mises removed from this entry? -- Xerographica ( talk) 01:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
We appear to have the same problem over at the foot voting article. I'm starting to wonder if there is a basic misunderstanding as to what an encyclopedia actually is at work here, and if WP:COMPETENCE isn't an issue. Volunteer Marek 03:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
This topic is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. The section or sections that need attention may be noted in a message below. |
See tag on article page. SPECIFICO talk 17:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This page was
proposed for deletion by
Rui Gabriel Correia (
talk ·
contribs) in the past with the comment: Makes no sense at all. Article started off as somethimng else, now the intro suggests it is something akin to public budgets, the next section swutches over to consumers. No sources. It was contested by Kvng ( talk · contribs) on 2017-09-26 with the comment: Makes enough sense that I could improve and find refs for this and I will. I assume others could too. |