Austrian Economics Wiki:Commons

Welcome to The Mises Commons, the central discussion board where you can make announcements, propose new ideas, and ask questions of the entire community.

To add a new item, add a ==Level two header== to introduce it.

For discussion related to long-term planning and development, also see the Mises Wiki Google Group.

Style guide

I would like to recommend that we use the Chicago Manual of Style as a basis for a MisesWiki:Manual of Style rather than the Wikipedia Manual of Style. The WP:MOS makes a large number of stylistic concessions in order to appeal to international speakers of English, resulting in a MOS that incorporates a variety of styles. Mises.org uses CMS as its style guide, and I think it makes sense to use it here as well, as most of our readers are Americans. Two things affected are:

• Spelling (use American all the time)
• Punctuation in relation to quotation marks (commas and periods should always appear inside quotation marks)

I'm sure there are others, but these are the ones that come to mind. Thoughts? --Forgottenman (talk) 16:09, 29 November 2010 (CST)

Yes, keeping the readership in mind, that's probably a sensible idea. You'll have to be patient with me though, as I'm used to writing under British conventions. Sovereign 12:08, 15 December 2010 (CST)

New project

It seems we could use a new project for the organization of small things - checking links, wikification of text, creating stubs, etc. Also needs a way to easily vote on the next page of interest. Ideas? Pestergaines 18:05, 2 December 2010 (CST)

Sounds reasonable. I'll set it up with some ideas at MisesWiki:WikiProject Cleanup. We'll need to develop more cleanup categories. --Forgottenman (talk) 09:38, 3 December 2010 (CST)

Looks nice already! Thanks. Pestergaines 15:03, 3 December 2010 (CST)

Most wanted Stub

Below, let's vote on the most desired stub, that is still missing and really, really should be created, with some good content for a start. Please edit this list: anyone can add more candidates to it, and vote for any number of them - but only once on each. Of course, anyone can create the stub(s) in question, too! Once created, the candidates will be removed from the list. Pestergaines 15:03, 3 December 2010 (CST)

• Free market: +2
• Karl Marx: +1
• World War I: +1
• New Deal: +1

Most wanted update

Which page badly deserves to be extended? Please edit this list: anyone can add more candidates to it, and vote for any number of them - but only once on each. Of course, anyone can update the page, too! Once sufficiently improved, the candidates will be removed from the list (but can be entered again for another round of updates). Pestergaines 15:03, 3 December 2010 (CST)

• ‎John Maynard Keynes: +1
• Franklin Delano Roosevelt: +1
• Charity: +1
• Estate tax: +1

"External links" --> "Links"?

Any thoughts on not using WP's convention of calling the links at the end "External links" but instead simply "Links"? My thinking is that in many cases the links are pointing to mises.org pages (such as literature pages, blog posts, etc.) and thus are not strictly "external." Plus, the word is redundant anyway. We could still use "See also" for referring to tangentially related wiki articles. --Forgottenman (talk) 10:43, 6 December 2010 (CST)

I am open to that upon first reflection. I am assuming we would likely continue a "See also" section for other related Mises Wiki article links not mentioned already in the main text. -- RayBirks 10:46, 6 December 2010 (CST)

Right. --Forgottenman (talk) 10:49, 6 December 2010 (CST)

Actually, that is a good idea! Pestergaines 11:23, 6 December 2010 (CST)

Positioning links from Mises Wiki to Wikipedia

I have been noticing links to Wikipedia main articles in various locations within the list of links to other resources, articles, etc. Perhaps we might suggest that, if the link to the related main Wikipedia entry is included, we make it the final entry in the list. I am thinking the reader is somewhat more likely to be getting a Classical-Liberal (and similar) point of view in the first links indicated, with the general readership-orientation of Wikipedia best fit for the reader's last choice. If this is already the working style, then perhaps someone might confirm. Thoughts? -- RayBirks 12:02, 9 December 2010 (CST)

That seems reasonable. Same for other general resources, I suppose. --Forgottenman (talk) 12:09, 9 December 2010 (CST)

Suggested order of closing sections

Is there a working rule of thumb for the order of the closing sections? I just added the See also section on the Great Depression page, and it seems out of whack.

I am thinking the order should be:

• See also
• Links
• References

Opinions? Input? And are there further sections we should take into account in this discussion? Thanks! -- RayBirks 20:06, 9 December 2010 (CST)

WP standard is "See also" then "References" then "Links" (see wikipedia:WP:FOOTERS). I like links to be last because they are least related to the content of the article. References specifically relate to the article itself; links point the reader outside the wiki and thus (IMHO) belong at the end. I'm okay with putting "See also" below or above references; either way makes sense. Other footer section types might be "Works" (i.e., on the page of a person – include a list of books he's written) and "Further reading" (like "Links" but to hard copy books for which links aren't available and which weren't used as references). Regarding those, I say Works first, and Further reading second to last. So:

• Works
• References
• See also
• Further reading
• Links

Or switch 2 and 3. Other ideas? --Forgottenman (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2010 (CST)

Article # 400

Don't know if anyone noticed, but our 400th article is on none other than Taxation !! -- RayBirks 13:06, 12 December 2010 (CST)

Yes, great work everyone! I wonder when we can get to 500. :) Pestergaines 17:59, 12 December 2010 (CST)

Guide

A guide of articles for newbies to basics of Economics or mises would be great. I don't know where start and it would be great to have that sort of guide/suggestion to start reading some articles. —unsigned comment by PLj9N (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2010.

An excellent idea! As we build the wiki a "reader's guide" of some sort would be quite helpful for others as well, I imagine. Thanks! --Forgottenman (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2010 (CST)

I second (third?) this. I would also suggest that there be two introductions: one for those completely new to economics (in a similar vein to Murphy's Lessons for the Young Economist), and one that introduces concepts in Austrian economics to those who are familiar with "mainstream" economics. -- Six 23:59, 12 December 2010 (CST)

Definitely agreed. The wiki itself is meant to be a backbone for educational efforts. One could start a project with a bunch of pages and steal text left and right, concentrating on simple writing. The underlying pages would supply links to more resources and would contain the more difficult and obscure details.

Add another wanted on the heap: a category for reading lists. Pestergaines 09:00, 13 December 2010 (CST)

Logic category

With the key basis for Austrian economics being deductive logic, and a lacking of articles on deductive logic, I'd like to suggest that logic in its general form should be part of the scope of this wiki, possibly cultivated within a 'Logic' category. Naturally, we can make this relevant to economics through examples (rather than the traditional All Men are Mortal example). -- Six 08:26, 13 December 2010 (CST)

Logic is already part of the scope of this wiki, and it is only logical. :) Pestergaines 08:51, 13 December 2010 (CST)