149:
refs. The first approach allows others to add to an article, the second makes it very difficult for other editors. You know that a ref is good. You read the book and right there on page 236 is a great definition of club theory. If, when you put up the material in the article, you put the ref inline (with the page #) you'd have virtually no problems on any
Knowledge (XXG) article. Truly your enjoyment and additions to the project would grow exponentially. So would everyone else's.
21:
330:. The mission is to overcome the preference revelation problem and determine exactly how much of a public good to supply. It's an important mission because society has limited resources. How can we maximize the amount of benefit we derive from society's limited resources? Answering that question is the very point of economics. --
165:
would be in a far better place to defend and improve an article. As my grandfather said "measure twice, cut once". The small increase in effort at the front end will result in great reductions of effort and less stress on the back end. Just my opinion, for what its worth. 00:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
108:
It certainly could have been done better...but it was better than nothing. You're saying that the cup is half empty rather than half full. Obviously I could have invested far more time into writing this article. I could have even given up my day job to do so. I could in fact dedicate every second
239:
Hmmmmm, I imagine you added the Sesame Street video because under Club Theory we are discussing the optimal use of public goods. EG: If a swimming pool has too many members of the public using it at the same time no one gets the full enjoyment of the resource. Too many cabs in central London and the
354:
The discussion above (both sections) do not seem to be focused on article improvement. Was Sesame Street included as a genuine effort to create an interesting and valuable article? If so, then wonderful. It should be, I would hope, simple or easy to explain why it is germaine to the article. But
93:
To be clear, when we add a ref it should be inline (at the close of the thought it is the reference for). References should not be dumped willy-nilly at the bottom of a page with no explanation of how (or if) they connect with the material within the article. Doing otherwise makes a mess for others
291:
The answer to the whole highway problem lies in “pricing” the highway correctly. The existence of congestion on our streets and highways is solely due to the fact that we do not charge high enough “prices” for their use. This is one of the main functions of price in our free enterprise economy...
164:
And, by the way, your additions are indeed better than nothing. You are clearly an intelligent editor who cares about the things that he is working on. Small changes in your editing approach would pay vast dividends. Who could argue effectively with most your refs if placed inline initially? You
148:
OK, here's the deal. It is better for an article (any article) if you add one decent ref inline than two or a dozen or a hundred refs unconnected in a lump at the bottom of the page. It is better to create a stub with a lede and one good inline ref than a 'half full' article with many unconnected
78:
It is painful because someone else clearly read and added the material. They could have just as easily done it correctly when it the material was first added. When a ref is first added it is far easier to connect it inline to the thought rather than have a follow-on editor read through an 80 page
219:
Here's another simple exercise. Look over the references that I added to the entry I created for club theory. One reference should quickly grab your attention. You can be certain that Rich and Rubin saw that I created that entry. So how come they didn't notice that "reliable" source? Would it be
374:
To a certain extent...I'm happy to try and teach these concepts. But you haven't been willing to meet me half way. You never do your own homework. Instead, you expect me to jump through your hoops like some sort of circus clown. It's ridiculous. Learn from
Capitalismojo. He read over the
126:
If you're truly going to fundamentally improve this article...then you're going to have to pour through more than just one 80 page paper to do so. Is it worth it for you? How can I possibly know what your opportunity costs are? All I can know is that it was worth it for me to sacrifice the
375:
material and was able to provide a reasonably informed perspective on the topic of whether or not the Sesame Street song is relevant to this article. If an editor doesn't do their own homework...then how can they possibly identify whether a discussion is relevant to article improvement? --
224:
So
Capitalismojo wins the grand prize...he's the first one to actually look through the references. But the prize would be even greater if he could explain the relevance of the Sesame Street song. --
49:
The reference list is improperly set up. The references should be inline in the article. Reading though each of the papers to find where the first editor might have thought they fit is a true pain.
180:. The thing is...there are other editors who could really benefit from your advice to "measure twice, cut once". I've been telling Rich, Rubin and SPECIFICO to "read more, edit less". --
292:
rice relieves potential congestion around our meat counters, our motels, and our models. Why do we shun its usage in the case of highway services? - James M. Buchanan,
240:
traffic is a nightmare. Too many bears in the bed and its not fun for all the bears, too few bears and it's lonely. Was that your point? Do I win a greater prize?
31:
64:
If reading through the papers is painful rather than pleasurable...then well...why bother? Why not improve articles on topics that genuinely interest you? --
276:
Yeah, that's the connection. So you win the grand prize...but you didn't win the bonus prize. The bonus prize would have been for the..."Therefore..."
170:
220:
disruptive if you were to remove it? Perhaps a bit...it's arguably relevant...but it certainly wouldn't be worth being blocked over.
213:
311:
27:
176:
259:
245:
154:
99:
84:
54:
380:
335:
229:
185:
132:
69:
394:
364:
20:
356:
355:
if it was added as a test or taunt to see if other editors would catch it, then the addition was
255:
241:
150:
127:
alternative uses of my time in order to try and share some of the key concepts and references. --
95:
80:
50:
376:
331:
319:
225:
181:
128:
65:
212:
It's funny because here's what I wrote to
Stalwart111 nearly a month ago on my talk page...
327:
390:
360:
168:
Thanks for the positive feedback...but your advice is a day late and a dollar short...
109:
of every day of the rest of my life to improving this article. But so could you!
323:
315:
206:
398:
384:
368:
339:
263:
249:
233:
189:
158:
136:
103:
88:
73:
58:
79:
paper to find why the first editor added it in the first place.
15:
214:
User_talk:Xerographica/Archive_3#Crux_of_the_problem.3F
389:
Then your point was to teach me and other editors? –
310:
I found that passage in
Marciano's excellent paper...
202:
Capitalismojo just removed this "reliable" source...
254:If that isn't the connection, you have me stumped.
8:
294:Painless Pavements: Highways by High Finance
26:This article was previously nominated for
207:Sesame Street - Five Bears in the Bed
171:Motivation, Agency, and Public Policy
7:
14:
19:
1:
399:00:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
385:23:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
369:22:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
340:23:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
264:23:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
250:22:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
234:20:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
190:00:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
159:23:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
137:23:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
104:23:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
89:23:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
74:20:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
59:16:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
417:
177:The Other Invisible Hand
312:Why Markets Do Not Fail
314:. This ties into
320:benefit principle
42:
41:
408:
350:POINTy addition?
328:hypothecated tax
30:. The result of
23:
16:
416:
415:
411:
410:
409:
407:
406:
405:
352:
200:
47:
12:
11:
5:
414:
412:
404:
403:
402:
401:
351:
348:
347:
346:
345:
344:
343:
342:
303:
302:
301:
300:
299:
298:
297:
296:
282:
281:
280:
279:
278:
277:
269:
268:
267:
266:
222:
221:
210:
209:
199:
196:
195:
194:
193:
192:
146:
145:
144:
143:
142:
141:
140:
139:
117:
116:
115:
114:
113:
112:
111:
110:
46:
45:Reference list
43:
40:
39:
32:the discussion
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
413:
400:
396:
392:
388:
387:
386:
382:
378:
373:
372:
371:
370:
366:
362:
358:
349:
341:
337:
333:
329:
325:
321:
317:
313:
309:
308:
307:
306:
305:
304:
295:
290:
289:
288:
287:
286:
285:
284:
283:
275:
274:
273:
272:
271:
270:
265:
261:
257:
256:Capitalismojo
253:
252:
251:
247:
243:
242:Capitalismojo
238:
237:
236:
235:
231:
227:
218:
217:
216:
215:
208:
205:
204:
203:
198:Sesame Street
197:
191:
187:
183:
179:
178:
173:
172:
167:
166:
163:
162:
161:
160:
156:
152:
151:Capitalismojo
138:
134:
130:
125:
124:
123:
122:
121:
120:
119:
118:
107:
106:
105:
101:
97:
96:Capitalismojo
94:to clean up.
92:
91:
90:
86:
82:
81:Capitalismojo
77:
76:
75:
71:
67:
63:
62:
61:
60:
56:
52:
51:Capitalismojo
44:
37:
33:
29:
25:
22:
18:
17:
377:Xerographica
353:
332:Xerographica
293:
226:Xerographica
223:
211:
201:
182:Xerographica
175:
169:
147:
129:Xerographica
66:Xerographica
48:
35:
324:user charge
316:tax choice
357:WP:POINTy
28:deletion
391:S. Rich
361:S. Rich
318:, the
395:talk
381:talk
365:talk
359:. –
336:talk
326:and
260:talk
246:talk
230:talk
186:talk
174:and
155:talk
133:talk
100:talk
85:talk
70:talk
55:talk
36:keep
34:was
397:)
383:)
367:)
338:)
322:,
262:)
248:)
232:)
188:)
157:)
135:)
102:)
87:)
72:)
57:)
393:(
379:(
363:(
334:(
258:(
244:(
228:(
184:(
153:(
131:(
98:(
83:(
68:(
53:(
38:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
