This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
WikiProject Capitalism page. |
|
Capitalism NA‑class ( inactive) | |||||||
|
Aggregate demand. User:byelf2007 ( talk) 19 September 2011
I just do what I can. I tried working on Gold standard. I did put a nice criticism on the WHO's ranking of healthcare systems, altho thats the frontier of our territory. Im looking at Phillips curve now.
It seems as though this project was begun in an attempt to give a positive influence on some articles that were being written with a negative POV; I am willing to contribute towards a positive influence of articles under review. I also prefer, as a personal preference, the term Free Market Economy instead of Capitalism, but I realize that Capitalism is more recognizable. ( Regushee ( talk) 18:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC))
Having "turf", as I understand the term, is tantamount to WP:OWN. Wikipedia is a commons. How about term that reflects that fact? Yakushima ( talk) 13:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
The list of econ topics mentioned as candidates for added discussion in Austrian terms is quite long. If you're going to discuss capitalism from a neutral point of view -- an announced objective of the project -- why wouldn't you give equal weight to including Marxist perspectives on capitalism? Certainly, the fact that one of the largest and fastest-growing economies in the world is run by avowed Marxists would suggest the Marxist perspective on capitalism is a good long way from dead. Would a casual observer be wrong in inferring this Wikiproject really amounts to little more than POV-pushing Austrian econ? Yakushima ( talk) 13:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Editors, please note that IAW Talk Page Guidelines any user may add to talk pages. Discussion guidelines apply to articles and projects. -- S. Rich ( talk) 01:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
"Would a casual observer be wrong in inferring this Wikiproject really amounts to little more than POV-pushing Austrian econ?"
First of all, the bit about a "casual observer" is humorous to me. Are they the standard we set for ourselves, or should we be more concerned with the views of people who are actually knowledgeable and passionate about wikipedia?
Anyway, anyone who's a part of this project can create open tasks. So, essentially, the complaint here is "There's this one guy (who happened to start this group, so I guess he likes improving wikipedia) who made a list of a bunch of articles s/he wants [more or some] Austrian perspective on. Therefore, this group appears to amount to little more than an Austrian School group...and I won't create any open tasks so it can stay that way" Actually, this is a group concerning itself with capitalism. So, you could create a task to improve the coverage on the free-market roads page if you wanted to (and many more). Just because I want to cover AS in a bunch of articles doesn't mean "this group = Austrian". Perhaps someone will include a list of 100 capitalism topics they want more Marxian perspective on (and I won't complain, although someone by the same reasoning could cry "This is a Marxism group!" and revel in their lack of creating tasks--seriously, if you don't like how many AS tasks there are, add some non-AS tasks).
At this point, someone might point out that AS does not equal capitalism. The reason why AS needs to be a focus of this group is because AS is essentially the capitalist school of economics. I'm NOT saying "capitalism = laissez-faire". However, AS is basically advocacy of capitalism in its purest form. Therefore, it is important to a project that wants to improve coverage of capitalism on this site to improve coverage of AS on economic topics because that is essentially just improving the coverage of capitalism on this site (the goal includes "related topics", which includes most economic topics). This is akin to focusing on Marx's theories for a socialism wikiproject.
"But capitalism has been looked at from every economic, political (and for that matter, religious) point of view, and those views should be given due weight."
So go ahead and add the Marxism tasks. It's not like I'd have a problem with that.
"Milton Friedman -- is he not in the "Capitalist school of economics"? "
The capitalism page says "Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit". Therefore, in it's purest form, we'd have freedom of currencies and banking. Friedman doesn't want laissez-faire. While Friedman can be called a capitalist, my point is that it's important for us to represent those who advocate the purest form of what this group is concerned with. And since basically any economic topic would fall under the scope of this project, you can go ahead and add 100 tasks concerning Monetarism.
Finally, it's natural for wikiprojects to focus on tasks which would generally add more coverage for things that exemplify the views of those involved. There's nothing wrong with adding content to wikipedia, and I hardly see how a capitalism wikiproject being disproportionately focused on AS means it is no longer a capitalism wikiproject--if you don't like how it is, add more tasks. User:byelf2007 ( talk) 16 September 2011
On undue: You provide no arguments here--only assertions. You even say "if I had to bet" instead of "I think". Economics articles are within the scope of the project. You'll also note that "liquidity trap" has no criticism section. There are people out there that think it doesn't exist. Should we not allow criticism of the liquidity trap?
Also, you said you're fine with there being an AS wikiproject, and yet you say "You're also assuming that AS coverage is, on balance, inadequate now." So what would this AS wikiproject do exactly? User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
From WP:PROJGUIDE: "The pages of a WikiProject are the central place for editor collaboration on a particular topic area. Editors there may develop criteria, maintain various collaborative processes, keep track of work that needs to be done, and act as a forum where issues of interest to the editors of a subject may be discussed." and "To be effective, a WikiProject must foster not only interest in the topic of the project, but also an esprit de corps among its members. When group cohesion is maintained—where, in other words, project members are willing to share in the less exciting work—a WikiProject can muster the energy and direction to produce excellent articles systematically rather than incidentally."
User:Yakushima's recent edits do not comport with these guidelines. Perhaps later, when the project is more mature, his goals or proposed expansion of the project can be incorporated (with the consensus of Project members), but for now I am deleting Yakushima's edits as unhelpful. -- S. Rich ( talk) 14:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)15:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Editors (and members in particular) are requested to discuss Project related issues on this Discussion page. Raising Project related issues or concerns outside of this page (for example, here: [2]) does not foster collaboration or consensus. -- S. Rich ( talk) 15:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following comment has been copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Wikipedia:WikiProject Capitalism:
As Yakushima has raised the concern, editors and members are encouraged to discuss the issue here.-- S. Rich ( talk) 15:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Cretog writes: "It does appear as though this project is an attempt to gather folks who feel that certain ideologies are underrepresented on Wikipedia ...." -- yes, they feel that way. But what's the objective reality? Wikipedia was co-founded by an Objectivist, as I'm sure you all know. Wikipedia attracts (or rather, fails to repel ;-) the tech-savvy. That's a demographic within which Libertarianism has historically been, if anything, significantly overrepresented.
I became aware of this Capitalism WikiProject starting with this curious edit [5] to paradox of toil, an article which, as I left it, seems to me to be, if anything, leaning a bit Austrian by virtue (?) of heavily referencing an economist Casey Mulligan who (as you can see from the red link) perhaps falls somewhat short of WP notability, at least compared to certain others who have written on this subject. Please note the sneering and dismissive edit summary. Then note the provenance of the edit: byelf. And then note what author cited (Gauti Eggertsson) on the deleted sentence actually says in his abstract:
The wording byelf deleted as "B.S." was hardly more than an abridgement of a statement in the source cited -- and since byelf didn't bother to make a clarifying change (as one ought to, in adhering to WP:PRESERVE), well ... I think this is a pretty clear-cut case of tendentious editing -- moreover, done without even checking the source cited.
Had the matter been left there, I wouldn't be here. In fact, I'd forgotten all about this "paradox of toil" incident. But no, I get this, from Rich: [6], who can't quite seem to quite get it straight in two tries [7] leaving me wondering why I was being fingered for ... what? ... vandalizing somebody's talk page? One that I'd never even edited? Finally, some clarification, from Rich: [8]. And that comment leads me back to a comment I'd made to byelf about edits to paradox of toil, here [9] in which I'd restored a discussion on byelf's Talk page that I felt hadn't concluded yet. I'm still mystified as to why byelf deleted it -- the only possible reason I can think of is that the content of my comment embarrassed byelf's editing attempt on paradox of toil. After, "I deleted it because, alone among all classes of Wikipedia pages, I WP:OWN my own Talk page"? "I deleted it because I can?" OK, then why not all the others too? Permission isn't ipso facto a reason.
Needless to say, I started wondering: "Just what kind of editors am I dealing with here?" And, scrolling down on Belf's talk page, I discover that Byelf has sent out a number of postings to talk pages entitled "You are cordially invited to save the world" -- and a link to WikiProject Capitalism, which on that date [10] has exactly one line that might suggest to anyone that anybody might be invited to criticize Austrian School economics under the rubric of the Project. From that point onward, the Project's Austrian weighting only grew.
So what are we to conclude? That Byelf hopes to use Wikipedia to save the world through promotion of Austrian economics? Not least by roping in a bunch of other Austrians on Wikipedia?
Ya think?
AGF only goes so far.
Now, Byelf disclaimed (when asked [11]) that there was any WP:CANVAS violation going on with these invitations to "save the world." But interestingly, the invitations have gone out to
And, except for Rich, that's about it, from what I gather.
Do we detect a pattern yet? Let's look at who didn't get invited (but instead, got slightly harassed with error-riddled wikilawyering from Rich.) Byelf didn't invite me, despite ample evidence that I had an interest in economics. Rich didn't invite me either, and he can hardly be considered to be unaware of my existence or interests, under the circumstances. Why no invite? Hm, I guess it's because I'm definitely not a treehouse club member in this supposed "capitalist school of economics" that byelf seems to think exists, and around which adherents are clustering on this WikiProject. Funny, the capitalist school of economics wikilink is still red. Could it be because of this? [13]
WP:UNDUE. WP:NPOV. WP:FRINGE. WP:OWN. WP:CANVAS. Time for review, I think. You guys want an Austrian School WikiProject? Fine. But claiming to represent The Truth(tm) about Capitalism, and what it really is? The better to save the world? Not on Wikipedia. Yakushima ( talk) 05:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm confused. This edit occurred back in July. ?You're only off by a couple of months? User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
"an article which, as I left it, seems to me to be, if anything, leaning a bit Austrian by virtue (?) of heavily referencing an economist Casey Mulligan who (as you can see from the red link) perhaps falls somewhat short of WP notability, at least compared to certain others who have written on this subject."
Did I include the Mulligan stuff? Nope. So, I'm not sure what your point is. User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
And now that we're on this subject (still not sure how it's relevant), the article began (prior to my edit):
"The paradox of toil is the economic hypothesis that employment will continue to shrink when "the short-term nominal interest rate is zero and there are deflationary pressures and output contraction". This is advanced as a case of the fallacy of composition."
Did I screw up the edit? I guess so. User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
Does this prove that there's an Austrian School conspiracy here? Nope. User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
"The paradox of toil is the economic hypothesis that employment will continue to shrink when "the short-term nominal interest rate is zero and there are deflationary pressures and output contraction". Put simply, when a recessionary economy is up against the zero bound, having more people seeking work - at lower wages if necessary - can actually reduce the number of jobs."
There's nothing confusing about that (only a lack of detail, which already existed because the part I took out muddled the article).
You're basically arguing that because I made a bad edit, this wikiproject has problems. These are entirely different issues. User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
"I'm still mystified as to why byelf deleted it -- the only possible reason I can think of is that the content of my comment embarrassed byelf's editing attempt on paradox of toil." Yakushima ( talk) 17 September 2011
Obviously, it's because S. Rich told me I could and that your edit was improper. User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
.... (possibly) S. Rich gave me bad advice and I chose to listen, or (at the very worst) that I needlessly removed another person's contribution because I am a douche bag. So how do we get from there to AS conspiracy?
"Needless to say, I started wondering: "Just what kind of editors am I dealing with here?" And, scrolling down on Belf's talk page, I discover that Byelf has sent out a number of postings to talk pages entitled "You are cordially invited to save the world" -- and a link to WikiProject Capitalism" Yakushima ( talk) 17 September 2011
You know what's funny? That in the year 2011 there was no wikiproject for capitalism. User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
Here's a better theory: it never got much interest because it's been done to death and represents the mainstream economic status quo of societies almost everywhere in the world. Maybe that's why the Capitalism Portal on Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Capitalism
is moribund. Yakushima ( talk) 07:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Naturally, some people might feel like this is pretty lame, so they go out and get some people they think will be interested in the project to join so that we get a great website. User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
Did I say "You are cordially invited to be a part of an Austrian School conspiracy to doom wikipedia to the status of libertarian schlock?" User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
"which on that date [14] has exactly one line that might suggest to anyone that anybody might be invited to criticize Austrian School economics under the rubric of the Project." Yakushima ( talk) 17 September 2011
I'm not sure what you're saying here. The goals of the project include allowing people to get more coverage of criticisms of AS, therefore, we have AS conspiracy. User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
So because the goal of the project isn't "destroy Keynesianism", it proves that that's exactly what we're trying to do? User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
Was I supposed to write "Oh, by the way guys, you are totally super encouraged to promote Keynesianism via this wikiproject" in order to convince you that this isn't AS conspiracy? User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
" From that point onward, the Project's Austrian weighting only grew. So what are we to conclude? That Byelf hopes to use Wikipedia to save the world through promotion of Austrian economics? Not least by roping in a bunch of other Austrians on Wikipedia? Ya think?" " Yakushima ( talk) 17 September 2011
So it's a problem that I added a bunch of articles where I thought AS needs more coverage? So what? User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
It's within the scope of the project (economics). And ANYONE is able to add tasks. After you added "Marxism, Socialism, and Anarchism" to the list, I decided to change it to "Create/expand criticisms/debate/interpretation sections for:" So why didn't I just write that from the start? It's because most of those pages have Keynesian and/or Monetarist and/or Marxist interpretations, but no AS ones (or AS in generally much shorter). User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
OK, I'm tired of this. So far, I just don't see some tragic underrepresentation of AS. A bunch of terms from various branches of Keynesianism might not even have any commentary from Austrians. Not least because they probably Keynesians and Austrians probably don't have any significant points of difference over most terms. Yakushima ( talk) 07:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Important: equality with other unpopular school of economics isn't all that counts--one sentence just ain't enough. Your argument is "Oh, well Marxism got shafted, too". Does that mean we aren't supposed to add AS content? If you think the list of AS edits is bad because of a skew to AS, again, I've already changed that, and I still don't see any evidence that that's a problem as long as it's within the scope. It's also worth mentioning that most of those you listed have either no or very little AS. User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
So I happened to be interested in adding coverage to AS. So what? Anyone else could've added 100 tasks for Marxian interpretations. User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
Your argument is essentially that the only person making several contributions to the project page is interested in adding coverage to AS. So this whole project (which anyone can join and change the tasks of) is an AS conspiracy because there isn't enough participation? User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
What was I supposed to do? Send out 1,000 invites? User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
I decided to invite people who I thought would be interested in a capitalism wikiproject. User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
So, I generally invited people who support laissez-faire. So what? It's a pretty safe assumption that those people who generally be more interested in a project of this kind. ... I don't see how this is an issue. User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
I said "AS is essentially the capitalist school of economics", not "AS is also known by many people as 'the capitalist school of economics', seriously, you can look it up". User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
Not sure how this gets connected to the AS conspiracy theory. User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
"Time for review, I think. You guys want an Austrian School WikiProject? Fine." Yakushima ( talk) 17 September 2011
Here's an idea: add open tasks. User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
You're complaining about how other people are running a wikiproject by saying there's a huge focus on a particular aspect of THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT. User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
You haven't raised any issues with the scope of the project or argued that the AS list wasn't within the scope. So your complaint is over what people running the project are interested in working on within the scope of the project? User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
Suppose I didn't add the AS list until today, and a few days ago someone added 100 tasks about Marxism. Would I have complained? Nope. User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
By your rationale, you would have argued that there was a Marxian conspiracy afoot. User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
"But claiming to represent The Truth(tm) about Capitalism, and what it really is? The better to save the world? Not on Wikipedia." Yakushima ( talk) 17 September 2011
Isn't the whole point of wikipedia to represent the truth to better the world? Um...yeah. User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
There is only one way to resolve this POV issue -- to close the discussion and focus attention on improving the layout, scope, task listing, goals, etc. of the Project page. The project is open to all persons with an interest in Capitalism, regardless of their perspective. -- S. Rich ( talk) 17:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I hope we have WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS -- the Project is about Capitalism. Editors might have their own POV about various Capitalism subjects, but as good Wikipedians they will not use the Project (or this Talk Page) for POV-pushing. Comments? -- S. Rich ( talk) 08:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I really hope this puts this nonsense to rest:
NUMBER ONE
WP:UNDUE applies to SUPERMINORITY POSITIONS--AS IN HOLOCAUST DENIALISM AND MOON LANDING DENIALISM And this DOES NOT apply to the Austrian School.
NUMBER TWO
WP:UNDUE says: "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views [examples included are holocaust denialism, moon landing denialism, the Earth is flat, etc.] as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views."
Even IF this applied to Austrian school, there is NO EVIDENCE that a long Austrian School task list would mean giving AS MUCH detail for Austrian School IN THE ARTICLES as majority viewpoints.
Furthermore, all I did was indicate that there needs to be more AS coverage in a lot of articles (where this is often none whatsoever). Your argument is that I'm POV-pushing because I didn't include Marxism, too? So what? Including info that should be included is not pushing POV. By that rationale, people push POV by putting Keynesian interpretation in an article but not AS. But all that means is that the article is getting more coverage that it should have. Are we supposed to not add content to an article untel we're ready to add all the content that ought to be added?. User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
NUMBER THREE
Furthermore, Yakushima's argument essentially boils down to: "If you add tasks to the wikiproject, make sure you don't add a bunch of tasks that would, even for a couple weeks, before more people join, skew the tasks of the project towards a certain viewpoint, even if the viewpoint often has NO representation in the articles listed."
NUMBER FOUR
I ALREADY deleted most of the AS list and ALL of the remaining topics ARE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE ARTICLE. User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
Much (not all, not some) of the material above is simply a rehash of minority/heterodox/mainstream/innie v. outie debate that is ongoing on other article talk pages. Please, this project is about Capitalism and most certainly not about the Austrians. The motives of each editor are being disparaged, with little effort to improve the scope, goals, or task lists. Instead, each project member is spending energy on article related subjects rather than Project improvement. It's time to WP:CLOSE this portion of the discussion and move on. -- S. Rich ( talk) 17:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
With the edits to the Project page, I hope we have WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS. As stated above, the Project is about Capitalism. Editors might have their own POV about various Capitalism subjects and opinions about "how much" text should be devoted to various aspects of various articles. But as good Wikipedians they will endeavor to make sure that the Project and Capitalism article pages do not suffer from WP:UNDUE problems. Comments? -- S. Rich ( talk) 08:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
From what I've read in this dialog, I think the subject of the Austrians has been adequately discussed, with a reasonable level of discussion and an understandable amount of POV. I think it has come to its natural end, and recommend further discussion at a later time, if necessary( Regushee ( talk) 16:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC))
At what point does something warrant its own criticisms article? If we shouldn't have a "Criticisms of Keynesian economics" or "Criticisms of Austrian School" article, then why have any of the various criticisms articles we already have? Where's the "bright line"? User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
Congratulations Capitalists on your wikiproject from your colleagues at WPConservatism! I know you're just getting setup, but I would like to propose an article collaboration between our two projects. I'm thinking a combined effort to promote an article to GA. I think it would help build esprit de corps among your members. Let me know when you're ready... – Lionel ( talk) 01:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I have noticed that things have slowed down a bit here. If and only if there is agreement with your membership, I'd like to propose that WPCapitalism become a workgroup of WPConservatism. This is not about ideology, but about resources. WPConservatism is a modern wikiproject with many technological innovations. We utilize automation as much as possible. We have a monthly newsletter, assessments/review dept., and an article incubator. We would be able to help out with administration and free up your members to grow WPCapitalism. Many of our members have capitalistic interests and this affiliation would expose our 70 members to WPCapitalism and vice-versa. WPCapitalism would retain all of it's pages, members, everything. WPCapitalism could end the affiliation at any time. – Lionel ( talk) 03:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
The template
Template:Capitalism appears to be missing some important capitalist economists in its section on people. I got these names from the article on
Ludwig von Mises:
Frédéric Bastiat,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk,
Henry Hazlitt,
Carl Menger,
Jean-Baptiste Say,
Anne Robert Jacques Turgot,
Friedrich von Wieser.
I also wonder why
John Maynard Keynes is included since his theories undermine capitalism.
JRSpriggs (
talk) 11:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I am making revisions on the current stub entitled " Depleted community". Depleted communities are important to study in the area of capitalism because capitalism, or its improper practice, has been identified as one of the main causes of the creation of depleted community. These communities experience economic decline, after a period of growth, due to uneven development, which some say is an inherent part of capitalism. In researching this claim, we find that depleted community's economic decline leads to poverty and other social issues. In my revisions I will explore Capitalism's role in the creation of depleted communities, including its role in industrialization and public policy. Thus, in exploring capitalism, it is important to rectify or at least understand, the communities that have been negatively affected by it. Any constructive criticism would be appreciated by me and by this issue, which would obtain some much needed attention by this WikiProject! Thanks, Njeri Muturi ( talk) 04:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
The quest for getting Wikipedia editors the sources they need for articles related to capitalism and other subjects is gaining momentum. Here's what's happening and what you can sign up for right now:
In addition to these great partnerships, you might be interested in the next-generation idea to create a central Wikipedia Library where approved editors would have access to all participating resource donors. It's still in the preliminary stages, but if you like the idea, add your feedback to the Community Fellowship proposal to start developing the project. Drop by the talk page of User:Ocaasi, who is overseeing these projects, if you have any questions.-- JayJasper ( talk) 17:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Please see this RfC re including content on the Anarcho-capitalism page re its relationship with mainstream/traditional anarchism. N-HH talk/ edits 07:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi all,
My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.
One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.
This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:
• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film
• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.
• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.
• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____
• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost
The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014
For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (
talk) 15:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej ( talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej ( talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello there! There's an ongoing RfC concerning Paul Singer and WP:NPOV in a broader sense, that you might care to comment on. Thank you, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
If anyone is still active: Merging this project into the FInance project and making a task force into it is probably a good idea.
A draft has been initiated for the topic of "Free enterprise", which is currently a redirect with no article of its own. Please help improve this draft so that it can be moved to mainspace. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.
Portals are being redesigned.
The new design features are being applied to existing portals.
At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{ Transclude lead excerpt}}.
The discussion about this can be found here.
Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you. — The Transhumanist 07:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I would like to split Economic inequality. According to this link the article is 202 kB and WP:SIZESPLIT suggests an article be split after 40 kB. Also, on the top of the page is a banner that is two years old suggesting the article should be split.
Since I am new, I would like to build a consensus first, rather than WP:BRD. To that end, I put a post on Talk:Economic_inequality and am contacting everyone who has edited the page in the past month and, in addition, I am contacting all the concerned Wikiprojects.
Thanks for your time and please come down to discuss! Seahawk01 ( talk) 01:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Industrial Revolution to be moved to First Industrial Revolution. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 19:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for There ain't no such thing as a free lunch to be moved to there is no such thing as a free lunch. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 02:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Capitalist Party to be moved to Liberalistene. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 21:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Great Wealth Transfer (United States)#Requested move 20 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 ( talk) 21:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for The Great Wealth Transfer (United States) to be moved to The Great Wealth Transfer. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 22:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
WikiProject Capitalism page. |
|
Capitalism NA‑class ( inactive) | |||||||
|
Aggregate demand. User:byelf2007 ( talk) 19 September 2011
I just do what I can. I tried working on Gold standard. I did put a nice criticism on the WHO's ranking of healthcare systems, altho thats the frontier of our territory. Im looking at Phillips curve now.
It seems as though this project was begun in an attempt to give a positive influence on some articles that were being written with a negative POV; I am willing to contribute towards a positive influence of articles under review. I also prefer, as a personal preference, the term Free Market Economy instead of Capitalism, but I realize that Capitalism is more recognizable. ( Regushee ( talk) 18:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC))
Having "turf", as I understand the term, is tantamount to WP:OWN. Wikipedia is a commons. How about term that reflects that fact? Yakushima ( talk) 13:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
The list of econ topics mentioned as candidates for added discussion in Austrian terms is quite long. If you're going to discuss capitalism from a neutral point of view -- an announced objective of the project -- why wouldn't you give equal weight to including Marxist perspectives on capitalism? Certainly, the fact that one of the largest and fastest-growing economies in the world is run by avowed Marxists would suggest the Marxist perspective on capitalism is a good long way from dead. Would a casual observer be wrong in inferring this Wikiproject really amounts to little more than POV-pushing Austrian econ? Yakushima ( talk) 13:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Editors, please note that IAW Talk Page Guidelines any user may add to talk pages. Discussion guidelines apply to articles and projects. -- S. Rich ( talk) 01:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
"Would a casual observer be wrong in inferring this Wikiproject really amounts to little more than POV-pushing Austrian econ?"
First of all, the bit about a "casual observer" is humorous to me. Are they the standard we set for ourselves, or should we be more concerned with the views of people who are actually knowledgeable and passionate about wikipedia?
Anyway, anyone who's a part of this project can create open tasks. So, essentially, the complaint here is "There's this one guy (who happened to start this group, so I guess he likes improving wikipedia) who made a list of a bunch of articles s/he wants [more or some] Austrian perspective on. Therefore, this group appears to amount to little more than an Austrian School group...and I won't create any open tasks so it can stay that way" Actually, this is a group concerning itself with capitalism. So, you could create a task to improve the coverage on the free-market roads page if you wanted to (and many more). Just because I want to cover AS in a bunch of articles doesn't mean "this group = Austrian". Perhaps someone will include a list of 100 capitalism topics they want more Marxian perspective on (and I won't complain, although someone by the same reasoning could cry "This is a Marxism group!" and revel in their lack of creating tasks--seriously, if you don't like how many AS tasks there are, add some non-AS tasks).
At this point, someone might point out that AS does not equal capitalism. The reason why AS needs to be a focus of this group is because AS is essentially the capitalist school of economics. I'm NOT saying "capitalism = laissez-faire". However, AS is basically advocacy of capitalism in its purest form. Therefore, it is important to a project that wants to improve coverage of capitalism on this site to improve coverage of AS on economic topics because that is essentially just improving the coverage of capitalism on this site (the goal includes "related topics", which includes most economic topics). This is akin to focusing on Marx's theories for a socialism wikiproject.
"But capitalism has been looked at from every economic, political (and for that matter, religious) point of view, and those views should be given due weight."
So go ahead and add the Marxism tasks. It's not like I'd have a problem with that.
"Milton Friedman -- is he not in the "Capitalist school of economics"? "
The capitalism page says "Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit". Therefore, in it's purest form, we'd have freedom of currencies and banking. Friedman doesn't want laissez-faire. While Friedman can be called a capitalist, my point is that it's important for us to represent those who advocate the purest form of what this group is concerned with. And since basically any economic topic would fall under the scope of this project, you can go ahead and add 100 tasks concerning Monetarism.
Finally, it's natural for wikiprojects to focus on tasks which would generally add more coverage for things that exemplify the views of those involved. There's nothing wrong with adding content to wikipedia, and I hardly see how a capitalism wikiproject being disproportionately focused on AS means it is no longer a capitalism wikiproject--if you don't like how it is, add more tasks. User:byelf2007 ( talk) 16 September 2011
On undue: You provide no arguments here--only assertions. You even say "if I had to bet" instead of "I think". Economics articles are within the scope of the project. You'll also note that "liquidity trap" has no criticism section. There are people out there that think it doesn't exist. Should we not allow criticism of the liquidity trap?
Also, you said you're fine with there being an AS wikiproject, and yet you say "You're also assuming that AS coverage is, on balance, inadequate now." So what would this AS wikiproject do exactly? User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
From WP:PROJGUIDE: "The pages of a WikiProject are the central place for editor collaboration on a particular topic area. Editors there may develop criteria, maintain various collaborative processes, keep track of work that needs to be done, and act as a forum where issues of interest to the editors of a subject may be discussed." and "To be effective, a WikiProject must foster not only interest in the topic of the project, but also an esprit de corps among its members. When group cohesion is maintained—where, in other words, project members are willing to share in the less exciting work—a WikiProject can muster the energy and direction to produce excellent articles systematically rather than incidentally."
User:Yakushima's recent edits do not comport with these guidelines. Perhaps later, when the project is more mature, his goals or proposed expansion of the project can be incorporated (with the consensus of Project members), but for now I am deleting Yakushima's edits as unhelpful. -- S. Rich ( talk) 14:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)15:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Editors (and members in particular) are requested to discuss Project related issues on this Discussion page. Raising Project related issues or concerns outside of this page (for example, here: [2]) does not foster collaboration or consensus. -- S. Rich ( talk) 15:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following comment has been copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Wikipedia:WikiProject Capitalism:
As Yakushima has raised the concern, editors and members are encouraged to discuss the issue here.-- S. Rich ( talk) 15:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Cretog writes: "It does appear as though this project is an attempt to gather folks who feel that certain ideologies are underrepresented on Wikipedia ...." -- yes, they feel that way. But what's the objective reality? Wikipedia was co-founded by an Objectivist, as I'm sure you all know. Wikipedia attracts (or rather, fails to repel ;-) the tech-savvy. That's a demographic within which Libertarianism has historically been, if anything, significantly overrepresented.
I became aware of this Capitalism WikiProject starting with this curious edit [5] to paradox of toil, an article which, as I left it, seems to me to be, if anything, leaning a bit Austrian by virtue (?) of heavily referencing an economist Casey Mulligan who (as you can see from the red link) perhaps falls somewhat short of WP notability, at least compared to certain others who have written on this subject. Please note the sneering and dismissive edit summary. Then note the provenance of the edit: byelf. And then note what author cited (Gauti Eggertsson) on the deleted sentence actually says in his abstract:
The wording byelf deleted as "B.S." was hardly more than an abridgement of a statement in the source cited -- and since byelf didn't bother to make a clarifying change (as one ought to, in adhering to WP:PRESERVE), well ... I think this is a pretty clear-cut case of tendentious editing -- moreover, done without even checking the source cited.
Had the matter been left there, I wouldn't be here. In fact, I'd forgotten all about this "paradox of toil" incident. But no, I get this, from Rich: [6], who can't quite seem to quite get it straight in two tries [7] leaving me wondering why I was being fingered for ... what? ... vandalizing somebody's talk page? One that I'd never even edited? Finally, some clarification, from Rich: [8]. And that comment leads me back to a comment I'd made to byelf about edits to paradox of toil, here [9] in which I'd restored a discussion on byelf's Talk page that I felt hadn't concluded yet. I'm still mystified as to why byelf deleted it -- the only possible reason I can think of is that the content of my comment embarrassed byelf's editing attempt on paradox of toil. After, "I deleted it because, alone among all classes of Wikipedia pages, I WP:OWN my own Talk page"? "I deleted it because I can?" OK, then why not all the others too? Permission isn't ipso facto a reason.
Needless to say, I started wondering: "Just what kind of editors am I dealing with here?" And, scrolling down on Belf's talk page, I discover that Byelf has sent out a number of postings to talk pages entitled "You are cordially invited to save the world" -- and a link to WikiProject Capitalism, which on that date [10] has exactly one line that might suggest to anyone that anybody might be invited to criticize Austrian School economics under the rubric of the Project. From that point onward, the Project's Austrian weighting only grew.
So what are we to conclude? That Byelf hopes to use Wikipedia to save the world through promotion of Austrian economics? Not least by roping in a bunch of other Austrians on Wikipedia?
Ya think?
AGF only goes so far.
Now, Byelf disclaimed (when asked [11]) that there was any WP:CANVAS violation going on with these invitations to "save the world." But interestingly, the invitations have gone out to
And, except for Rich, that's about it, from what I gather.
Do we detect a pattern yet? Let's look at who didn't get invited (but instead, got slightly harassed with error-riddled wikilawyering from Rich.) Byelf didn't invite me, despite ample evidence that I had an interest in economics. Rich didn't invite me either, and he can hardly be considered to be unaware of my existence or interests, under the circumstances. Why no invite? Hm, I guess it's because I'm definitely not a treehouse club member in this supposed "capitalist school of economics" that byelf seems to think exists, and around which adherents are clustering on this WikiProject. Funny, the capitalist school of economics wikilink is still red. Could it be because of this? [13]
WP:UNDUE. WP:NPOV. WP:FRINGE. WP:OWN. WP:CANVAS. Time for review, I think. You guys want an Austrian School WikiProject? Fine. But claiming to represent The Truth(tm) about Capitalism, and what it really is? The better to save the world? Not on Wikipedia. Yakushima ( talk) 05:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm confused. This edit occurred back in July. ?You're only off by a couple of months? User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
"an article which, as I left it, seems to me to be, if anything, leaning a bit Austrian by virtue (?) of heavily referencing an economist Casey Mulligan who (as you can see from the red link) perhaps falls somewhat short of WP notability, at least compared to certain others who have written on this subject."
Did I include the Mulligan stuff? Nope. So, I'm not sure what your point is. User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
And now that we're on this subject (still not sure how it's relevant), the article began (prior to my edit):
"The paradox of toil is the economic hypothesis that employment will continue to shrink when "the short-term nominal interest rate is zero and there are deflationary pressures and output contraction". This is advanced as a case of the fallacy of composition."
Did I screw up the edit? I guess so. User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
Does this prove that there's an Austrian School conspiracy here? Nope. User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
"The paradox of toil is the economic hypothesis that employment will continue to shrink when "the short-term nominal interest rate is zero and there are deflationary pressures and output contraction". Put simply, when a recessionary economy is up against the zero bound, having more people seeking work - at lower wages if necessary - can actually reduce the number of jobs."
There's nothing confusing about that (only a lack of detail, which already existed because the part I took out muddled the article).
You're basically arguing that because I made a bad edit, this wikiproject has problems. These are entirely different issues. User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
"I'm still mystified as to why byelf deleted it -- the only possible reason I can think of is that the content of my comment embarrassed byelf's editing attempt on paradox of toil." Yakushima ( talk) 17 September 2011
Obviously, it's because S. Rich told me I could and that your edit was improper. User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
.... (possibly) S. Rich gave me bad advice and I chose to listen, or (at the very worst) that I needlessly removed another person's contribution because I am a douche bag. So how do we get from there to AS conspiracy?
"Needless to say, I started wondering: "Just what kind of editors am I dealing with here?" And, scrolling down on Belf's talk page, I discover that Byelf has sent out a number of postings to talk pages entitled "You are cordially invited to save the world" -- and a link to WikiProject Capitalism" Yakushima ( talk) 17 September 2011
You know what's funny? That in the year 2011 there was no wikiproject for capitalism. User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
Here's a better theory: it never got much interest because it's been done to death and represents the mainstream economic status quo of societies almost everywhere in the world. Maybe that's why the Capitalism Portal on Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Capitalism
is moribund. Yakushima ( talk) 07:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Naturally, some people might feel like this is pretty lame, so they go out and get some people they think will be interested in the project to join so that we get a great website. User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
Did I say "You are cordially invited to be a part of an Austrian School conspiracy to doom wikipedia to the status of libertarian schlock?" User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
"which on that date [14] has exactly one line that might suggest to anyone that anybody might be invited to criticize Austrian School economics under the rubric of the Project." Yakushima ( talk) 17 September 2011
I'm not sure what you're saying here. The goals of the project include allowing people to get more coverage of criticisms of AS, therefore, we have AS conspiracy. User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
So because the goal of the project isn't "destroy Keynesianism", it proves that that's exactly what we're trying to do? User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
Was I supposed to write "Oh, by the way guys, you are totally super encouraged to promote Keynesianism via this wikiproject" in order to convince you that this isn't AS conspiracy? User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
" From that point onward, the Project's Austrian weighting only grew. So what are we to conclude? That Byelf hopes to use Wikipedia to save the world through promotion of Austrian economics? Not least by roping in a bunch of other Austrians on Wikipedia? Ya think?" " Yakushima ( talk) 17 September 2011
So it's a problem that I added a bunch of articles where I thought AS needs more coverage? So what? User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
It's within the scope of the project (economics). And ANYONE is able to add tasks. After you added "Marxism, Socialism, and Anarchism" to the list, I decided to change it to "Create/expand criticisms/debate/interpretation sections for:" So why didn't I just write that from the start? It's because most of those pages have Keynesian and/or Monetarist and/or Marxist interpretations, but no AS ones (or AS in generally much shorter). User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
OK, I'm tired of this. So far, I just don't see some tragic underrepresentation of AS. A bunch of terms from various branches of Keynesianism might not even have any commentary from Austrians. Not least because they probably Keynesians and Austrians probably don't have any significant points of difference over most terms. Yakushima ( talk) 07:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Important: equality with other unpopular school of economics isn't all that counts--one sentence just ain't enough. Your argument is "Oh, well Marxism got shafted, too". Does that mean we aren't supposed to add AS content? If you think the list of AS edits is bad because of a skew to AS, again, I've already changed that, and I still don't see any evidence that that's a problem as long as it's within the scope. It's also worth mentioning that most of those you listed have either no or very little AS. User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
So I happened to be interested in adding coverage to AS. So what? Anyone else could've added 100 tasks for Marxian interpretations. User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
Your argument is essentially that the only person making several contributions to the project page is interested in adding coverage to AS. So this whole project (which anyone can join and change the tasks of) is an AS conspiracy because there isn't enough participation? User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
What was I supposed to do? Send out 1,000 invites? User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
I decided to invite people who I thought would be interested in a capitalism wikiproject. User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
So, I generally invited people who support laissez-faire. So what? It's a pretty safe assumption that those people who generally be more interested in a project of this kind. ... I don't see how this is an issue. User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
I said "AS is essentially the capitalist school of economics", not "AS is also known by many people as 'the capitalist school of economics', seriously, you can look it up". User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
Not sure how this gets connected to the AS conspiracy theory. User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
"Time for review, I think. You guys want an Austrian School WikiProject? Fine." Yakushima ( talk) 17 September 2011
Here's an idea: add open tasks. User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
You're complaining about how other people are running a wikiproject by saying there's a huge focus on a particular aspect of THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT. User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
You haven't raised any issues with the scope of the project or argued that the AS list wasn't within the scope. So your complaint is over what people running the project are interested in working on within the scope of the project? User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
Suppose I didn't add the AS list until today, and a few days ago someone added 100 tasks about Marxism. Would I have complained? Nope. User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
By your rationale, you would have argued that there was a Marxian conspiracy afoot. User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
"But claiming to represent The Truth(tm) about Capitalism, and what it really is? The better to save the world? Not on Wikipedia." Yakushima ( talk) 17 September 2011
Isn't the whole point of wikipedia to represent the truth to better the world? Um...yeah. User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
There is only one way to resolve this POV issue -- to close the discussion and focus attention on improving the layout, scope, task listing, goals, etc. of the Project page. The project is open to all persons with an interest in Capitalism, regardless of their perspective. -- S. Rich ( talk) 17:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I hope we have WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS -- the Project is about Capitalism. Editors might have their own POV about various Capitalism subjects, but as good Wikipedians they will not use the Project (or this Talk Page) for POV-pushing. Comments? -- S. Rich ( talk) 08:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I really hope this puts this nonsense to rest:
NUMBER ONE
WP:UNDUE applies to SUPERMINORITY POSITIONS--AS IN HOLOCAUST DENIALISM AND MOON LANDING DENIALISM And this DOES NOT apply to the Austrian School.
NUMBER TWO
WP:UNDUE says: "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views [examples included are holocaust denialism, moon landing denialism, the Earth is flat, etc.] as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views."
Even IF this applied to Austrian school, there is NO EVIDENCE that a long Austrian School task list would mean giving AS MUCH detail for Austrian School IN THE ARTICLES as majority viewpoints.
Furthermore, all I did was indicate that there needs to be more AS coverage in a lot of articles (where this is often none whatsoever). Your argument is that I'm POV-pushing because I didn't include Marxism, too? So what? Including info that should be included is not pushing POV. By that rationale, people push POV by putting Keynesian interpretation in an article but not AS. But all that means is that the article is getting more coverage that it should have. Are we supposed to not add content to an article untel we're ready to add all the content that ought to be added?. User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
NUMBER THREE
Furthermore, Yakushima's argument essentially boils down to: "If you add tasks to the wikiproject, make sure you don't add a bunch of tasks that would, even for a couple weeks, before more people join, skew the tasks of the project towards a certain viewpoint, even if the viewpoint often has NO representation in the articles listed."
NUMBER FOUR
I ALREADY deleted most of the AS list and ALL of the remaining topics ARE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE ARTICLE. User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
Much (not all, not some) of the material above is simply a rehash of minority/heterodox/mainstream/innie v. outie debate that is ongoing on other article talk pages. Please, this project is about Capitalism and most certainly not about the Austrians. The motives of each editor are being disparaged, with little effort to improve the scope, goals, or task lists. Instead, each project member is spending energy on article related subjects rather than Project improvement. It's time to WP:CLOSE this portion of the discussion and move on. -- S. Rich ( talk) 17:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
With the edits to the Project page, I hope we have WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS. As stated above, the Project is about Capitalism. Editors might have their own POV about various Capitalism subjects and opinions about "how much" text should be devoted to various aspects of various articles. But as good Wikipedians they will endeavor to make sure that the Project and Capitalism article pages do not suffer from WP:UNDUE problems. Comments? -- S. Rich ( talk) 08:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
From what I've read in this dialog, I think the subject of the Austrians has been adequately discussed, with a reasonable level of discussion and an understandable amount of POV. I think it has come to its natural end, and recommend further discussion at a later time, if necessary( Regushee ( talk) 16:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC))
At what point does something warrant its own criticisms article? If we shouldn't have a "Criticisms of Keynesian economics" or "Criticisms of Austrian School" article, then why have any of the various criticisms articles we already have? Where's the "bright line"? User:byelf2007 ( talk) 17 September 2011
Congratulations Capitalists on your wikiproject from your colleagues at WPConservatism! I know you're just getting setup, but I would like to propose an article collaboration between our two projects. I'm thinking a combined effort to promote an article to GA. I think it would help build esprit de corps among your members. Let me know when you're ready... – Lionel ( talk) 01:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I have noticed that things have slowed down a bit here. If and only if there is agreement with your membership, I'd like to propose that WPCapitalism become a workgroup of WPConservatism. This is not about ideology, but about resources. WPConservatism is a modern wikiproject with many technological innovations. We utilize automation as much as possible. We have a monthly newsletter, assessments/review dept., and an article incubator. We would be able to help out with administration and free up your members to grow WPCapitalism. Many of our members have capitalistic interests and this affiliation would expose our 70 members to WPCapitalism and vice-versa. WPCapitalism would retain all of it's pages, members, everything. WPCapitalism could end the affiliation at any time. – Lionel ( talk) 03:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
The template
Template:Capitalism appears to be missing some important capitalist economists in its section on people. I got these names from the article on
Ludwig von Mises:
Frédéric Bastiat,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk,
Henry Hazlitt,
Carl Menger,
Jean-Baptiste Say,
Anne Robert Jacques Turgot,
Friedrich von Wieser.
I also wonder why
John Maynard Keynes is included since his theories undermine capitalism.
JRSpriggs (
talk) 11:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I am making revisions on the current stub entitled " Depleted community". Depleted communities are important to study in the area of capitalism because capitalism, or its improper practice, has been identified as one of the main causes of the creation of depleted community. These communities experience economic decline, after a period of growth, due to uneven development, which some say is an inherent part of capitalism. In researching this claim, we find that depleted community's economic decline leads to poverty and other social issues. In my revisions I will explore Capitalism's role in the creation of depleted communities, including its role in industrialization and public policy. Thus, in exploring capitalism, it is important to rectify or at least understand, the communities that have been negatively affected by it. Any constructive criticism would be appreciated by me and by this issue, which would obtain some much needed attention by this WikiProject! Thanks, Njeri Muturi ( talk) 04:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
The quest for getting Wikipedia editors the sources they need for articles related to capitalism and other subjects is gaining momentum. Here's what's happening and what you can sign up for right now:
In addition to these great partnerships, you might be interested in the next-generation idea to create a central Wikipedia Library where approved editors would have access to all participating resource donors. It's still in the preliminary stages, but if you like the idea, add your feedback to the Community Fellowship proposal to start developing the project. Drop by the talk page of User:Ocaasi, who is overseeing these projects, if you have any questions.-- JayJasper ( talk) 17:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Please see this RfC re including content on the Anarcho-capitalism page re its relationship with mainstream/traditional anarchism. N-HH talk/ edits 07:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi all,
My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.
One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.
This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:
• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film
• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.
• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.
• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____
• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost
The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014
For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (
talk) 15:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej ( talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej ( talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello there! There's an ongoing RfC concerning Paul Singer and WP:NPOV in a broader sense, that you might care to comment on. Thank you, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 01:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
If anyone is still active: Merging this project into the FInance project and making a task force into it is probably a good idea.
A draft has been initiated for the topic of "Free enterprise", which is currently a redirect with no article of its own. Please help improve this draft so that it can be moved to mainspace. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.
Portals are being redesigned.
The new design features are being applied to existing portals.
At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{ Transclude lead excerpt}}.
The discussion about this can be found here.
Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you. — The Transhumanist 07:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I would like to split Economic inequality. According to this link the article is 202 kB and WP:SIZESPLIT suggests an article be split after 40 kB. Also, on the top of the page is a banner that is two years old suggesting the article should be split.
Since I am new, I would like to build a consensus first, rather than WP:BRD. To that end, I put a post on Talk:Economic_inequality and am contacting everyone who has edited the page in the past month and, in addition, I am contacting all the concerned Wikiprojects.
Thanks for your time and please come down to discuss! Seahawk01 ( talk) 01:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Industrial Revolution to be moved to First Industrial Revolution. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 19:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for There ain't no such thing as a free lunch to be moved to there is no such thing as a free lunch. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 02:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Capitalist Party to be moved to Liberalistene. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 21:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Great Wealth Transfer (United States)#Requested move 20 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 ( talk) 21:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for The Great Wealth Transfer (United States) to be moved to The Great Wealth Transfer. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 22:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)