October 11, 2009
Britain's Central Planning Death Panels
October 11, 2009
Free Market M.D.
October 11, 2009
Economies of Scale in Compliance
October 11, 2009
Balan's Challenge
October 10, 2009
The Pleasure of Telling Others What to Do
October 10, 2009
Gonick the Great - and How He Could Have Been Greater
October 9, 2009
More Scott Sumner
October 9, 2009
Not From The Onion
October 9, 2009
Thoughts on a Second Stimulus
I don't think that link points to where it is supposed to point.
Please do go to Wikipedia and edit the entry on the financial crisis! I have not found a better source of information than your articles and others should have the opportunity. It is not that other sources are not factual, they do not have the complete picture or the experience. I am sure there are others, too, that could add their experience to create an even more complete picture of what has happened.
link fixed. Thanks, Alex J.!
If you want to edit a controversial subject on Wikipedia, be prepared to babysit the article for the next three months.
Also be prepared to find that AshCatchum2007 gets believed more than you because of his 200 edits to the Bulbasaur article.
By coincidence, I was checking my Wikipedia watchlist this morning for vandalism to sites to which I have contributed and found a couple. As I recall it, at the time I wished that there were a way to make it harder to vandalize while retaining the ease of improvement. Monitoring for vandalism does time and attention, and is subject to inefficiency as probably several people have all checked the same entry only to see that it is OK. Unfortunately, I do not have a sense that vandalism is drying up. Apparently the sophomoric we will always have with us.
Plus, there are the edits that are not pure graffiti but rather unsubstantiated personal opinion. Often these are by people that have the commitment to Wikipedia actually to have registered and have a handle. Normally I just check anonymous changes, but for certain articles that is not enough.