Tuesday, November 19, 2013

Wikipedia fail

Posted by dkuehn at 4:59 AM
15% of the Wikipedia article on liquidity preference is about Rothbard.

Internet Austrians are completely delusional about the extent to which what they think matters.

26 comments:

  1. AnonymousNovember 19, 2013 at 8:42 AM

    It's a rather short entry, and only one line mentions Rothbard (with only one line mentioning Keynes). Don't pout, it's unbecoming.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Daniel KuehnNovember 19, 2013 at 9:11 AM

      I'm not pouting but you seem awfully invested.

      It's just dumb. Whoever saw the short article on liquidity preference and thought "You know what this needs? Rothbard!" is not contributing value to Wikipedia. That's all.

      Delete
    2. gcallahNovember 19, 2013 at 10:10 AM

      You are clearly forgetting that Rothbard is the greatest economist who ever lived, as well as the best historian and most astute philosopher. And damned good in bed, too.

      Delete
    3. Lord KeynesNovember 19, 2013 at 12:35 PM

      Not to mention that Rothbard actually invented orgasms too.

      Delete
    4. Major_FreedomNovember 20, 2013 at 7:44 PM

      DK you are pouting and you seem awfully disinvested.

      Those two sentences do "contribute", because it helps the reader know of ideas contrary to liquidity preference. After all, the most important alternative to liquidity preference theory is time preference theory.

      I think you're just peeved that "Austrianism" is so in your face. You want it nice and fringe-like, where it belongs in your mind. Having Rothbard, your dreaded anarcho-capitalist nemesis, right there on a wiki post of liquidity preference, just "disturbs" you "in a deep way".

      Usually behavior like yours stems from some fear or another. Perhaps you're scared of what will happen when readers are guided to Rothbard contra Keynes.

      Delete
    5. JoeNovember 20, 2013 at 9:43 PM

      Rothbard also had that sort of 'fear of the other'. He mainly felt it towards poor black people, who he hoped to see kept down in their rightful place at the bottom of the 'natural' genetic hierarchy.

      Delete
    6. Daniel KuehnNovember 21, 2013 at 3:08 AM

      MF -
      The question here really, really, really, really, really isn't whether time preference criticism should be in a liquidity preference article.

      It should. Without a doubt.

      Rothbard doesn't disturb me at all. There are plenty of places in Wikipedia where he ought to be prominent.

      I'm not going to wade into your psychoanalysis... I hope you understand.

      Delete
  2. PrometheeFeuNovember 19, 2013 at 11:29 AM

    I disagree Daniel. I for one feel that I gained a lot by going over to the Austrian side before coming back into the light. There was a lot about demand-side theories I never understood because I never truly questioned it. It's useful to have a counter-point even if that counter-point is eventually shown to be wrong. Sure, I could have gone on to get a PhD and done all the questioning I needed to do without ever adhering to ABCT, but seeing my wife going through her own program, I'm happy I made the choices I made.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Bob MurphyNovember 19, 2013 at 12:53 PM

    What the heck are you talking about Daniel? By definition, if someone holds the Rothbardian position on something, s/he thinks it is correct and that the "mainstream" position (assuming they're different) is wrong. So it you're saying one of two things:

    (A) "Austrians should realize that they are actually wrong, and keep their mistakes to themselves."

    (B) "Austrians can go ahead and think that the current Wikipedia entry on liquidity preference contains a mistake, but they shouldn't fix it because it might annoy Keynesians. The Austrians should realize that Keynesians don't care whether they are actually right, they just feel comfortable reading what they already believe."

    So which is it?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bob MurphyNovember 19, 2013 at 12:55 PM

    And the rest of you should be ashamed of yourselves, too. If someone added a paragraph to the Wikipedia entry on soap operas, explaining Rothbard's take, OK fine. But I think the Austrians are allowed to offer their opinion on a major plank of economic theory, right?

    I'm seriously astounded at this, Daniel. I can't imagine seeing a Keynesian critique in the ABCT entry and thinking, "What the hell? Why would a Keynesian think he has any business commenting on this topic?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallahNovember 19, 2013 at 2:53 PM

      No, Bob, I am not ashamed at all: If someone wanted to note that the pure time preference theory of interest is a rival theory, that is fine. But Rothbard did not invent that theory, and he is not its most famous proponent. I just looked up "liquidity preference" in my (well, Sandy's) Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, and in FOUR pages of discussion, dealing with lots of criticism of Keynesianism, Rothbard is not mentioned once. And that is right: he is not a significant thinker in this regard. The entry of Rothbard into this article is pure Rothbard marketing effort.

      Delete
    2. Ken BNovember 19, 2013 at 11:35 PM

      This is a small entry in a criticism section, not an intellectual history. What's appropriate is a reference to a clear exposition. I haven't read that book but in general I have found Rothbard to be an admirably clear writer.

      Delete
    3. SharpeNovember 20, 2013 at 4:47 PM

      'I can't imagine seeing a Keynesian critique in the ABCT entry and thinking, "What the hell? Why would a Keynesian think he has any business commenting on this topic?"'

      How admirable. You should have a word with your friends over at Mises.org; they've set up their own in-universe encyclopedia called "Mises Wiki". I challenge anyone here to slip in "Keynesian" points on, say, Say's Law, without being reverted. You could make a game out of it ...

      Delete
  5. Daniel KuehNovember 19, 2013 at 1:18 PM

    Bob - if the question is "do Austrians have an interest in getting their ideas out on the internet" I obviously agree the answer is "yes".

    If the question is "is it reasonable, if the goal is to have a comprehensive online encyclopedia, for the Austrian position to take up fifteen percent of the liquidity preference entry and be regularly featured on every econ entry", the answer is certainly "no".

    I am not confused at all about Austrian motivations on this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousNovember 19, 2013 at 11:18 PM

      "for the Austrian position to take up fifteen percent of the liquidity preference entry"

      That is a failure of Keynesians to explain.

      "and be regularly featured on every econ entry"

      A significant school of thought shouldn't be able to put its alternatives and criticisms on relevant Wikipedia entries?

      Delete
    2. Joe SchmoeNovember 20, 2013 at 3:24 AM

      You should educate yourself on wikipedia policies and guidelines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_policies_and_guidelines) before thinking to lecture anyone for their contributions to wikipedia.

      "If the question is "is it reasonable, if the goal is to have a comprehensive online encyclopedia, for the Austrian position to take up fifteen percent of the liquidity preference entry and be regularly featured on every econ entry", the answer is certainly "no"."

      The answer to that question is "it depends". It depends largely on what state the article was in at the time; the breadth and detail included, the established consensus, the maliciousness of the edits, et cetera. Actually, what it depends on most importantly is whatever consensus forms as a result of discussion and debate in the wikipedia talk page.

      I take it you aren't a frequent contributor on wikipedia and don't understand it's guidelines or policies. You understand how wikipedia works, yes? Volunteer contributors edit an article over time. This process is often slow going, and most of the time key guidelines and policies are violated in the process, or at least not upheld consistently (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules). It is up to the volunteers who edit and notice a problem to correct said problems. There is no wikipedia police who go around enforcing the rules. But as more people add to, remove from, discuss, and otherwise edit the article or its talk page for various reasons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Understanding_IAR#Successfully_ignoring_rules), it grows into an incredibly well-made piece of work.

      For a stub like liquidity preferences, the most important part is to fill it so that it is not a stub before worrying about undue weight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV#Due_and_undue_weight). In the words (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold) of Wikipedia: Be Bold! Make edits to an article if you think they need it. You will find others will make bold edits. The correct response to an edit that you feel is problematic is not to lament said problems, but fix said problems with your own edit. And not to take it personally if someone comes around and edits your contributions.

      What most likely happened is that some random Austrian stumbled upon the article, recognized a viewpoint they disagreed with, noticed it had no listed criticisms, and tossed one out there. Travesty, you say? Conspiracy, you say? No, not really. Had everyone who stumbled across the article done something similar (that is, made a small edit to resolve some perceived problem), the article would be an amazing treatise on the subject. Instead, it seems you are content with lamenting the contributions of others and providing nothing yourself.

      You realize that wikipedia is edittable, right? If you feel like a two-sentence addition to a stub is inappropriate, explain your rationale in the talk page for removing it. Then remove it. Better yet, go and fill out the page with contrasting viewpoints to your hearts content so that the weight of the Austrian position is almost entirely marginalized.

      Make edits and contribute; if you don't, the contributors to wikipedia do not care what your opinions are about their edits.

      Delete
    3. Daniel KuehnNovember 20, 2013 at 3:33 AM

      Yikes - let me save you some breath here, buddy.

      1. I'm no Wikipedia expert, but I'm familiar with everything you shared.
      2. Not a travesty.
      3. Definitely not a conspiracy (although sometimes I wonder what sort of plots are hatched in Auburn, but I assume they primarily concern getting bourbon on the menu at the local waffle house).
      4. What it is is a group of people that are untethered from reality on the issue of how much their ideas matter for the science.
      5. Yes I'm free-riding on Wikipedia. So?

      I've actually participated in one talk page before on this issue and the consensus of the editors was that while they find the internet Austrians to generally reduce the quality of economics posts there were no grounds for removing the material because nothing was especially inaccurate.

      re: "Make edits and contribute; if you don't, the contributors to wikipedia do not care what your opinions are about their edits."

      Much like Morpheus, my beliefs don't require the contributors to care.

      Delete
  6. kevin quinnNovember 19, 2013 at 3:32 PM

    OK Bob, I'm game: what IS the Austrian position on soap opera? Don't be a tease!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bob MurphyNovember 19, 2013 at 10:22 PM

      It's simple, Kevin: If the reader likes soap operas, then they are a beautiful creation of the free market. If the person hates soap operas, then they are the result of government intervention.

      Delete
    2. gcallahNovember 20, 2013 at 12:56 PM

      Excellent!

      Delete
  7. CurrentNovember 19, 2013 at 7:09 PM

    Since we're talking about this, here's a quick question I have on the liquidity trap.... On one hand we have "money" which I assume means fiduciary media such balances in bank accounts. On the other hand we have "bonds" which I assume mean actual bonds, things like T-bills and bank accounts with notice periods. It seems to me that the effect that changes between these have on the economy depends on their backing. Do Keynesians assume that the money and the bond and backed differently? Does how they are backed have any effect on the theory?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bob MurphyNovember 19, 2013 at 10:32 PM

      What's your deal, Current? Your comment is taking up 15% of this blog post. Jerk.

      Delete
    2. CurrentNovember 20, 2013 at 6:49 AM

      Now, thanks to "Joe Schmoe" it's only 2% of this post! This is what I hate about Wikipedia.

      Delete
  8. Blue AuroraNovember 19, 2013 at 9:51 PM

    Daniel Kuehn: As of which revision of that Wikipedia article?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ken BNovember 19, 2013 at 11:13 PM

    I hate to side with Bob but ... I agree the Rothbard plug looks like a rather clumsy product placement in a bad movie. Maybe as Gene notes a different critic could be cited. But surely the major objection to the theory IS the Austrian idea. How can it really be out of place in a subsection titled criticisms to mention one of the main ones?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallahNovember 20, 2013 at 12:57 PM

      "But surely the major objection to the theory IS the Austrian idea."

      No, it is from Irving Fischer, and is the main neoclassical theory of interest.

      Delete

All anonymous comments will be deleted. Consistent pseudonyms are fine.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)