Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
Article | Fractional-reserve banking |
Status | Closed |
Request date | 20:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
Requesting party | Andrewedwardjudd ( talk) |
Mediator(s) | rm2dance ( talk) |
Comment | stale |
Editors Lawrencekhoo, BigK and others are preventing reliable sources from being added making it impossible to present a neutral point of view on the wiki for Fractional Reserve Banking. The Wiki is currently written as the Truth in the voice of Wiki.
Andrewedwardjudd and Reissgo are attempting to get reliable sources added.
Those preventing a neutral point of view are:
Those working to create a neutral point of view are:
Editors preventing neutral point of view
I want to present the neutral view as it exists rather than having it altered by these editors.
"Does the conversation need better structure? Are folks having difficulty communicating? Are they talking past each other? Stuff like that."
Bobrayner is not in the discussion on the talk page. BigK says the alternative view can only be expanded if reliable sources are found - which he then deletes - otherwise he is not in a discussion. The fight to get a neutral point of view has been going on for years since feb 2007 when a section of the wiki was deleted. Some 'alternative view' sources have been added - many are deleted. Lawrencekhoo has softened his attitude towards me.
If wiki genuinely wants neutral points of view please help us to get one presented.
The whole situation is very odd.
The requesting party should notify all involved parties with the goal of resolving this problem. Please also condense any and all notes. rm2dance ( talk)
1) BigK says the alternative view can only be expanded if reliable sources are found - which he then deletes.... LawrenceKhoo refuses to talk to me.....Bobraynor deletes but is not apparently involved Andrewedwardjudd ( talk) 08:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd
2) As for LawrenceKhoo, if this editor is still editing/causing problems, then the problem has to be taken higher up in the dispute chain, and this user should be banned, or whatever remedy the formal dispute-related committee(s) decides upon. rm2dance ( talk)
3) BigK HeX and bobraynor refuse to even discuss the issues Andrewedwardjudd ( talk) 08:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd
I will contact all involved parties who previously are unwilling to join to request that they join in order to solve the claimed NPOV problem(s), instead of wasting everybody's time by taking the problem higher up. If this fails, and problems caused by editors who are unwilling to join talks persist, then this case should simply be closed, and the dispute taken higher up. As already made clear in the Mediation Cabal process, this is informal and the mediator has no administrative privileges. rm2dance ( talk)
Waiting to see if any problems arises. I expect to check back later this weekend, fyi. rm2dance ( talk) 03:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
As requested by the mediator on this page:
The mediator has also been notified of these notifications and changes.
The whole problem in this debate is that there seems to be a disconnect between the view expressed in most textbooks and the views expressed in research papers and by central bankers in speeches and other documents. Its rather analogous to having most ordinary family doctors (in the UK they're called General Practitioners) having a view X about brain surgery, while the brain surgeons themselves have a view Y. Now if we label both brain surgeons and doctors as simply "doctors", then one could say that the "majority" or "mainstream" view is X. If however we consider the views of brain surgeons as being of a higher level of expertise, and say that their view trumps ordinary doctors, then we could say that the "majority" or "mainstream" view is Y. I believe that wikipedia would want to publish the view of the majority of the most expert possible category of sources. In this case of describing how the monetary system works, the most expert category would be "research papers" and "The views of senior central bankers". AndrewWardJudd has now built up a formidable collection of references to journal papers and the words of central bankers here. BigKHex and Lawrencekhoo between them have produced nothing in reply other than the words of textbooks.
... anticipating the reply of BK and LK... I can imagine that they will suggest that we've "had this debate before". Indeed this is true, but previously they have criticised the quality and quantity of my references. Andrewwardjudd has increased both the quality and quantity enormously, so this issue needs to be reconsidered. Reissgo ( talk) 16:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Anyways, absolutely nothing provided by either User:Reissgo or User:Andrewedwardjudd has indicated the viewpoint in question has generally accepted by the mainstream. In fact, the sources they've provided have reinforced the fact that the view is one regarded as minority. Nearly all of the authors in their sources have prefaced their commentary by describing how their view is not generally well-accepted. By WP:NPOV, the article cannot be rewritten from this minority point of view as Reissgo and Andrewedwardjudd have attempted to do. BigK HeX ( talk) 19:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I would invite andrewedwardjudd to try to present this case more neutrally, instead of carefully framing it in terms of people who want a neutral article (ie. him) versus the bad guys who want a biased article (all the people who disagree with him). Apart from the merely annoying slips, like the lack of signatures or threading which make things harder to read, there do seem to be a series of more substantial policy issues - for instance, I had to notify parties involved in this case because andrewedwardjudd didn't, and he has since taken to talkpage canvassing of other editors who he thinks might be able to help him "push through" some difficult edits, and of course there's the editwarring. And that's even before we get to the content problem itself, the sourcing, and the huge talkpage screeds. This is no way to set about improving an article; and engaging with an editor like this is very difficult. bobrayner ( talk) 22:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I just want to note a few things that will hopefully help sort out this matter:
1. The mainstream view about money creation is presented in this article on Money Supply in the New Palgrave by Benjamin Friedman, Harvard Economics prof. This is not 'text book' material. It is cutting edge understanding written by an expert for experts in the field of monetary economics. I'll be estatic if the view expressed in the New Palgrave article is properly incorporated into Wikipedia.
2. Endogenous money can be divided into 'weak' and 'strong' views.
The 'weak endogenous money view' (described by Goodhart, etc.) is that as long as central banks target interest rates, they do not control the quantity of money, since they must accomodate any change in money demand in order to fix interest rates. I believe that almost all mainstream economists agree with the 'weak endogenous money view', since it's widely accepted that you can either control the price or the quantity of money, but not both at the same time. That said, there is debate in the mainstream over what is the appropriate way to i) teach about and describe the monetary system, ii) model it in the economic models. AFAIK, most mainstreamers still believe that the traditional 'text-book' view is the appropriate way to teach and describe it, with more debate about how best to model it.
The 'strong endogenous money view' is that the action of lending out money creates the money and the reserves neccesary to support the new money. Central banks cannot control the amount of money even if they give up interest rate targetting. In fact, central banks cannot and have never been able to control the amount of money in the economy. Demand for credit has always determined money supply. (I'm unclear about this view, so I may not be correctly describing it.)
3. The appropriate place to include discussion of these issues is the money creation and endogenous money articles, and to a lesser extent the money multiplier article. Fractional reserve banking should not have an extended discussion of these issues. I'm perfectly happy to see the weak endogenous money view incorporated into the appropriate Wikipedia articles. But, one must bear in mind weight, balance, and whether the issues are directly related to the subject of the article ( Coatrack issues).
I'm totally swamped with work right now, so will not be participating in edits to the article, mediation or further debates. For reference, you can assume that I side with BigK and Freeloader on these issues, except that I'm probably more willing than either of them to rewrite the article to incorporate endogenous money viewpoints. I'll accept whatever comes out of mediation as long as it's acceptable to the regulars at WP:ECON. In case anyone desperately needs to talk with me, send me an email through the system. LK ( talk) 11:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Let me try to explain my views. But if we're going to get into so much detail, we should probably start the mediation process more formally. The trouble is that there are several issues here, and many of us likely agree on some but disagree on other issues. Let me list those that I see, followed with my understanding of the issue:
1. The money multiplier 'limits money creation'.
2. The central bank controls the quantity of money
3. Lending and relending through the 'money multiplier process' expands the money supply.
4. Endogenous money, what is it?
There are likely other issues, but I really must get back to work. If we take this to mediation, I'll try to make time to participate. -- LK ( talk) 05:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
Article | Fractional-reserve banking |
Status | Closed |
Request date | 20:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
Requesting party | Andrewedwardjudd ( talk) |
Mediator(s) | rm2dance ( talk) |
Comment | stale |
Editors Lawrencekhoo, BigK and others are preventing reliable sources from being added making it impossible to present a neutral point of view on the wiki for Fractional Reserve Banking. The Wiki is currently written as the Truth in the voice of Wiki.
Andrewedwardjudd and Reissgo are attempting to get reliable sources added.
Those preventing a neutral point of view are:
Those working to create a neutral point of view are:
Editors preventing neutral point of view
I want to present the neutral view as it exists rather than having it altered by these editors.
"Does the conversation need better structure? Are folks having difficulty communicating? Are they talking past each other? Stuff like that."
Bobrayner is not in the discussion on the talk page. BigK says the alternative view can only be expanded if reliable sources are found - which he then deletes - otherwise he is not in a discussion. The fight to get a neutral point of view has been going on for years since feb 2007 when a section of the wiki was deleted. Some 'alternative view' sources have been added - many are deleted. Lawrencekhoo has softened his attitude towards me.
If wiki genuinely wants neutral points of view please help us to get one presented.
The whole situation is very odd.
The requesting party should notify all involved parties with the goal of resolving this problem. Please also condense any and all notes. rm2dance ( talk)
1) BigK says the alternative view can only be expanded if reliable sources are found - which he then deletes.... LawrenceKhoo refuses to talk to me.....Bobraynor deletes but is not apparently involved Andrewedwardjudd ( talk) 08:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd
2) As for LawrenceKhoo, if this editor is still editing/causing problems, then the problem has to be taken higher up in the dispute chain, and this user should be banned, or whatever remedy the formal dispute-related committee(s) decides upon. rm2dance ( talk)
3) BigK HeX and bobraynor refuse to even discuss the issues Andrewedwardjudd ( talk) 08:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd
I will contact all involved parties who previously are unwilling to join to request that they join in order to solve the claimed NPOV problem(s), instead of wasting everybody's time by taking the problem higher up. If this fails, and problems caused by editors who are unwilling to join talks persist, then this case should simply be closed, and the dispute taken higher up. As already made clear in the Mediation Cabal process, this is informal and the mediator has no administrative privileges. rm2dance ( talk)
Waiting to see if any problems arises. I expect to check back later this weekend, fyi. rm2dance ( talk) 03:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
As requested by the mediator on this page:
The mediator has also been notified of these notifications and changes.
The whole problem in this debate is that there seems to be a disconnect between the view expressed in most textbooks and the views expressed in research papers and by central bankers in speeches and other documents. Its rather analogous to having most ordinary family doctors (in the UK they're called General Practitioners) having a view X about brain surgery, while the brain surgeons themselves have a view Y. Now if we label both brain surgeons and doctors as simply "doctors", then one could say that the "majority" or "mainstream" view is X. If however we consider the views of brain surgeons as being of a higher level of expertise, and say that their view trumps ordinary doctors, then we could say that the "majority" or "mainstream" view is Y. I believe that wikipedia would want to publish the view of the majority of the most expert possible category of sources. In this case of describing how the monetary system works, the most expert category would be "research papers" and "The views of senior central bankers". AndrewWardJudd has now built up a formidable collection of references to journal papers and the words of central bankers here. BigKHex and Lawrencekhoo between them have produced nothing in reply other than the words of textbooks.
... anticipating the reply of BK and LK... I can imagine that they will suggest that we've "had this debate before". Indeed this is true, but previously they have criticised the quality and quantity of my references. Andrewwardjudd has increased both the quality and quantity enormously, so this issue needs to be reconsidered. Reissgo ( talk) 16:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Anyways, absolutely nothing provided by either User:Reissgo or User:Andrewedwardjudd has indicated the viewpoint in question has generally accepted by the mainstream. In fact, the sources they've provided have reinforced the fact that the view is one regarded as minority. Nearly all of the authors in their sources have prefaced their commentary by describing how their view is not generally well-accepted. By WP:NPOV, the article cannot be rewritten from this minority point of view as Reissgo and Andrewedwardjudd have attempted to do. BigK HeX ( talk) 19:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I would invite andrewedwardjudd to try to present this case more neutrally, instead of carefully framing it in terms of people who want a neutral article (ie. him) versus the bad guys who want a biased article (all the people who disagree with him). Apart from the merely annoying slips, like the lack of signatures or threading which make things harder to read, there do seem to be a series of more substantial policy issues - for instance, I had to notify parties involved in this case because andrewedwardjudd didn't, and he has since taken to talkpage canvassing of other editors who he thinks might be able to help him "push through" some difficult edits, and of course there's the editwarring. And that's even before we get to the content problem itself, the sourcing, and the huge talkpage screeds. This is no way to set about improving an article; and engaging with an editor like this is very difficult. bobrayner ( talk) 22:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I just want to note a few things that will hopefully help sort out this matter:
1. The mainstream view about money creation is presented in this article on Money Supply in the New Palgrave by Benjamin Friedman, Harvard Economics prof. This is not 'text book' material. It is cutting edge understanding written by an expert for experts in the field of monetary economics. I'll be estatic if the view expressed in the New Palgrave article is properly incorporated into Wikipedia.
2. Endogenous money can be divided into 'weak' and 'strong' views.
The 'weak endogenous money view' (described by Goodhart, etc.) is that as long as central banks target interest rates, they do not control the quantity of money, since they must accomodate any change in money demand in order to fix interest rates. I believe that almost all mainstream economists agree with the 'weak endogenous money view', since it's widely accepted that you can either control the price or the quantity of money, but not both at the same time. That said, there is debate in the mainstream over what is the appropriate way to i) teach about and describe the monetary system, ii) model it in the economic models. AFAIK, most mainstreamers still believe that the traditional 'text-book' view is the appropriate way to teach and describe it, with more debate about how best to model it.
The 'strong endogenous money view' is that the action of lending out money creates the money and the reserves neccesary to support the new money. Central banks cannot control the amount of money even if they give up interest rate targetting. In fact, central banks cannot and have never been able to control the amount of money in the economy. Demand for credit has always determined money supply. (I'm unclear about this view, so I may not be correctly describing it.)
3. The appropriate place to include discussion of these issues is the money creation and endogenous money articles, and to a lesser extent the money multiplier article. Fractional reserve banking should not have an extended discussion of these issues. I'm perfectly happy to see the weak endogenous money view incorporated into the appropriate Wikipedia articles. But, one must bear in mind weight, balance, and whether the issues are directly related to the subject of the article ( Coatrack issues).
I'm totally swamped with work right now, so will not be participating in edits to the article, mediation or further debates. For reference, you can assume that I side with BigK and Freeloader on these issues, except that I'm probably more willing than either of them to rewrite the article to incorporate endogenous money viewpoints. I'll accept whatever comes out of mediation as long as it's acceptable to the regulars at WP:ECON. In case anyone desperately needs to talk with me, send me an email through the system. LK ( talk) 11:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Let me try to explain my views. But if we're going to get into so much detail, we should probably start the mediation process more formally. The trouble is that there are several issues here, and many of us likely agree on some but disagree on other issues. Let me list those that I see, followed with my understanding of the issue:
1. The money multiplier 'limits money creation'.
2. The central bank controls the quantity of money
3. Lending and relending through the 'money multiplier process' expands the money supply.
4. Endogenous money, what is it?
There are likely other issues, but I really must get back to work. If we take this to mediation, I'll try to make time to participate. -- LK ( talk) 05:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)