Wikipedia:Peer review/Natural monopoly/archive1
Natural monopoly[edit]
Recently went through heated debate and several edit wars; see Talk:Natural monopoly. Any comments or contributions welcome. Rd232 17:19, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Yep, looks like someone wanted to be the sole author of the article. You know how that goes. RJII 17:52, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I'm trying to write a good article which resembles what one would find in an encylopedia written by people who are knowledgeable of the subject. I'm sorry if you prioritise pushing your political POV, especially when you can't be bothered to either (a) describe it accurately and succinctly (or even readably) or (b) research it properly (and provide actual arguments instead of pointless waffle). Rd232 18:23, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- If you want something that "resembles what one would find in an encyclopedia" then why don't you go work for Encyclopedia Britannica? Wikipedia, from what I gather, allows for a little more diversity of information than what is present in traditional encyclopedias published by "the establishment." I'm sure Encyclopedia Britannica would love to hire a guy with your mentality. RJII 03:11, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- You're the one implicitly criticising my request for input from other Wikipedia editors. Honestly. If you're single-handedly trying to drive me away from Wikipedia, you're nearly there. Rd232 08:26, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- "Diversity of information" doesn't mean your NPOV bullshit. Wikipedia isn't a blog. Go play out your paranoid anti-establishment fantasies in some LARP. I've read all the revisions as far back as 16:54, 15 Jan 2005, and user RJII is abusing the topic as a political soapbox. A factual description of the concept of a natural monopoly does not include your opinion on what "advocates of laissez-faire capitalism" say, or your straw-man refutations of anything. Take it to the discussion page. Not the article. I can't find a version to revert to that doesn't contain opinionated crap, so some major revision needs to occur. I reiterate the need for peer review of this article. -- anonymous, 25 Jan 2005
- If you want something that "resembles what one would find in an encyclopedia" then why don't you go work for Encyclopedia Britannica? Wikipedia, from what I gather, allows for a little more diversity of information than what is present in traditional encyclopedias published by "the establishment." I'm sure Encyclopedia Britannica would love to hire a guy with your mentality. RJII 03:11, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I'm trying to write a good article which resembles what one would find in an encylopedia written by people who are knowledgeable of the subject. I'm sorry if you prioritise pushing your political POV, especially when you can't be bothered to either (a) describe it accurately and succinctly (or even readably) or (b) research it properly (and provide actual arguments instead of pointless waffle). Rd232 18:23, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Why is there a "common tendency for average costs to first fall then rise as output increases"? Also, the diagram could be improved to make it clearer that the $ axis is the cost. Also a brief description of a cost curve might be nice in the diagrams section: economics plebs like me find that sort of talk confusing :-) An explanation of a "dead-weight loss" might be nice, this is mentioned but I don't think it's too clear! Another question: who is Baumol? Is he an economist? I kind of guess he is! I realise he's in the references, but it would be nice to clarify this. Otherwise (from my non-Economist POV) this is a very informative and interesting article. And I don't find economics articles terribly interesting... Ta bu shi da yu 04:21, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)