January 5, 2010
The Economics of the Microsoft Case
January 5, 2010
The Economics of Illegal Drugs
January 5, 2010
Intellectuals and Society
January 5, 2010
Thinking Outside the House
January 5, 2010
FP2P Watch
January 5, 2010
The Books I Wish My Colleagues Would Write
January 4, 2010
Predictably Irrational or Predictably Rational?
January 4, 2010
My Sowell-mate on the Knowledge-Power Discrepancy
January 4, 2010
FP2P Watch
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.