Talk:Resource-based economy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Resource-based economy

1. Both The Venus Project and The Zeitgeist Movement have their own pages and are clearly notable. 2. Notability is about articles, not bits in an article. 3. The Venus projects official web page is a reliable source on what the Venus Project officially say. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. --Loremaster (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Correction: I agree with points 1 and 2 but I disagree with point 3 because I think we need an independent reliable source that confirms that both the Venus Project and the Zeitgeist Movement use the term “resource-based economy”. Can you help me find such a source? --Loremaster (talk) 14:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I can look, but the current reference is enough to show that TVP uses it, although admittedly it doesn't show that the Zietgeist movement does. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not TVP uses it, the issue is that we need an independent reliable source that confirms that TVP (and TZM) uses it, especially when someone challenges the source as being primary. --Loremaster (talk) 05:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

From WP:PRIMARY: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." That TVP uses the term "Resource-based economy" is immediately obvious from the primary source, since the source uses it. There is no analyzing and nothing controversial about it. TZM is a different issue, and the sources there are videos, and not really good sources for that reason, so something is needed there. A secondary source is of course acceptable in both cases, and I'll look for it once I get time. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand that. However, since the notability of TVP is being challenged, my point is that it's best to find an independent reliable source in order to shut everyone up ;) --Loremaster (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

But notability is about articles. If TVP is not notable, then The Venus Project should be deleted. In that case, obviously, the reference in this article should also be deleted. But as long as The Venus Project exists, the consensus is that TVP *is* notable. The claim that it isn't can therefore be discounted. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. Notability is not about articles. Articles come and go. And Wikipedia as said previously is not a reliable source. Not a reliable source, can not be used as a reliable source and has no value in the discussion for sourcing anything. Googling the title of the article comes up with zero information of serious import but lots of things like this http://www.theresourcebasedeconomy.com/2012/02/pleiadian-gift-economy-an-equal-value-system-of-economics/ about blogs and space aliens and forums but no reliable sources except maybe people quoting excerpts of info from one fringe group of Zeitgeist people or Fresco people to another or reports sourced just back to themselves. 175.100.40.56 (talk) 01:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

"Wrong. Notability is not about articles." - Please read WP:NOTABILITY. Notability is about articles. TVP and TZM are notable. You can claim they are not until the cows goes home, it doesn't change the facts that they *are* notable. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

tandem editing

Obvious that you are tandem editors from the history of the article and probably members of the groups in question. Also the article was deleted previously in an article for deletion because it is not a notable reference.

Also 1. Both The Venus Project and The Zeitgeist Movement have their own pages and are clearly notable. Wrong. Being on Wikipedia does not mean jack shit and it is not a reliable source. Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

2. Notability is about articles, not bits in an article. Wrong. You can not create an article and then add some phony internet group begging for money and call that notable.

3. The Venus projects official web page is a reliable source on what the Venus Project officially say. Wrong. Who knows? Its just another site or sites with pay pal buttons that might just be scamming little old ladies out of their milk money. This article probably merits a speedy delete.

I assume you are both involved with this group? 175.100.41.47 (talk) 12:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

LOL! For the record, I'm neither a member of The Venus Project nor The Zeitgeist Movement. In fact, I'm quite critical of both. The former for being techno-utopian and the latter for promoting conspiracy theories. However, regardless of our opinion of Venus and Zeitgeist, they are both notable enough to have Wikipedia articles about them according to Wikipedia guidelines. Furthermore, I do not know User:OpenFuture online or offline and I'm not editing in tandem with him or her. I therefore suggest you stop with the accusations and respect talk page guidelines, specifically the ones encouraging you to assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. That being said, I only agree with you to the extent that we need an independent reliable source to confirm that both Venus and Zeitgeist use the term “resource-based economy”. Lastly, the Resource-based economy article itself was deleted only when it focused exclusively on the use of the term by Venus and it was deemed that this use did not merit a lenghty and comprehensive article. It has now been turned into a disambiguation page that focuses on all the different definitions of the term. A one-sentence reference to the use of the term by Venus should not be cause for concern. This article therefore should not be deleted, especially since we could argue that the first definition of term probably merits a lenghty and comprehensive article. --Loremaster (talk) 14:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Spare me the l.o.l please. Also I now assume you are involved with the resource based economy groups of one kind or another, probably both of you and that is why you are now ridiculing Fresco and Zeitgeist. Also the article is a clear candidate for a speedy delete. It has incarnated a couple of times by you and your editing partner. You originated it again and it is totally clear what you are doing here. Your promoting directly or indirectly a neologism phrase of words and here is the proof of that http://thevenusproject.com/the-venus-project/resource-based-economy

Mr. Fresco takes 100% credit for inventing the term. So its a neologism an invented word invented recently by a group that hounds people for money on the internet that no one has written seriously about except themselves and it obvious the two editors here have some stake in the information, maybe from another subgroup of resource based Fresco style group or another. Wikipedia a place to promote this kind of thing? No. 175.100.40.27 (talk) 01:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, fine, so you hate these groups. Very well. Now go learn how Wikipedia works, and come back. Then we'll talk. Your comments above show that you have no idea of Wikipedia policies, and in fact you break several of them. The ridicolous paranoia doesn't help. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Despite what Fresco may or may not have claimed, we have reliable sources that indicate the term “resource-based economy” is used by scholars to refer to a different concept than the one intended by Fresco. So it's not a neologism. --Loremaster (talk) 05:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Stop the editwar

Guys, stop this editwar here. Otherwise I have to report it, with all the consequences for the article and your editing-status. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm just reverting vandalism (and I'm not the only one either). Calling it an edit-war is not really accurate. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Multiple reverts and counter-reverts is in my opinion an edit war. And I will not be looking who does what, but just report the three of you if this goes on. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be for the best if you should adopt a more constructive attitude. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

No, you three just have to stop bickering. This is just a warning, nothing and no one is yet reported by me. I give you all the chance to stop NOW. Next revert? Sorry guys... Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no bickering. Your empty threats are not a constructive attitude. You are obviously only coming here to start a fight, which is a silly attitude. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I have fully protected this page for four days to force discussion. The IP's points seem reasonable to me, and therefore their edits are not vandalism. I would suggest that both parties to this dispute engage in a dialogue instead of reverting each other. --Chris (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

*Facepalm*. Well, we have tried communicating with the IP, if it wants to communicate back without personal attacks it is welcome. Calling it's claims that me and Loremaster are involved with the organisations "reasonable" has no connection with reality, though. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I am speaking only about the self-published primary source and notability points. --Chris (talk) 16:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Which I responded to at the top of this page over three days ago. They might sound reasonable on first inspection, but they are incorrect. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

*sigh* In light of the madness that seems to have overtaken this article and its talk page, I am bowing out. --Loremaster (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Resource based economy?

According to the Venus Project site.

Quote. The term and meaning of a Resource Based Economy was originated by Jacque Fresco. It is a holisticsocio-economic system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival. End Quote.

Venus Project made up the term ala neologism phrase, I suppose in the last few years? It says on the Venus Project, J. Fresco site, it is 100% Venus Projects/Fresco creation and this link the two editors are giving as a citation proves that is the claim, whether true of false I don't know. Its not a reliable source only a promotion site for some theory by people that want other people to send in some money. 'http://thevenusproject.com/the-venus-project/resource-based-economy' The rest of the article is iffy also. Its not even a stub. It seems the article is an excuse to promote Zeitgeist and Venus Project for getting attention to resource based economics groups. Non notable. Self sourced. Neologism phrase. So called non profit that wants money. Promoting an idea that is beyond fringe. Article for deletion is appropriate or speedy delete. There is no reason this article exists beyond some kind of promoting of this term that is not being used in the context of mainstream use. The phrase being promoted maybe has a place in the article about Mr. Fresco. Maybe. Saying something in the J. Fresco article to the effect of, Mr. Fresco claims to have originated the term Resource Based Economics. 175.100.40.131 (talk) 17:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you say exactly what policy is broken by exactly what part of the article? This sort of vague criticism you come iwth above is not useful. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Whether your addressing this editor or one of the other comments I do not know but I listed my points above very clearly in several passages. Re-read this page possibly. The information is contrived to format a reference point using a phrase that is a neologism series of words that promote or advertise non notable ideas that have no serious commentary in general in the media beyond self generated spin off things.

The article is less than a stub with some filler information which is not connected to the main aspect of the article being to provide information to Venus Project and Zeitgeist.

I assume that people that will not budge about this and want to keep this exactly as is have some stake or membership in Resource Based Economics groups as they are inflexible about just having this phrased where it belongs and that is the J. Fresco article or Zeitgeist article with a disclaimer that the phrase was invented or originated by J. Fresco or claimed to be invented by said person. It has no business as an article in and of itself or can only be seen a promotional reference point to some internet blogs that promote this fringe material. I could go on... and I am repeating previous information now. 175.100.40.131 (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Despite what Fresco claims, we have independent reliable sources that indicate the term “resource-based economy” is used by scholars to refer to a different concept than the one intended by Fresco. So it's not a neologism. --Loremaster (talk) 05:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm addressing you, 175.100.40.131 or whatever IP address you use today. No, your criticism is not clear, but mixed up in long rants where you accuse me and Loremaster of being involved with TVP or TZM.

The information is contrived to format a reference point using a phrase that is a neologism series of words that promote or advertise non notable ideas that have no serious commentary in general in the media beyond self generated spin off things. - Even that is not clear, but a whole lot of statements at once, which are all, as far as I can see, incorrect or irrelevant. This is not a neologism, TVP and TZM are clearly notable, what the reason for the media attention is is irrelevant.

The article is less than a stub with some filler information - It is a very short article, yes. If you have suggestions about how to fill it out, they are welcome.

which is not connected to the main aspect of the article being to provide information to Venus Project and Zeitgeist. - That is not the main aspect of the article.

I assume that people that will not budge about this and want to keep this exactly as is have some stake or membership in Resource Based Economics groups - You are wrong.

as they are inflexible about just having this phrased where it belongs and that is the J. Fresco article or Zeitgeist article with a disclaimer that the phrase was invented or originated by J. Fresco or claimed to be invented by said person. - This article does not claim that Fresco invented the phrase, and such a claim would need to be supported by a reliable third-party source.

Your criticism is as such largely not about the article, but about me, Loremaster, TVP and Fresco. All that is irrelevant. You need to discuss the article, not me or Fresco. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I may not interact with you anymore OpenFuture since you think everything I said is irrelevant or have said that over and over, called information I am trying to get across ranting above and said I was using paranoi as an editing tool http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Resource-based_economy&diff=prev&oldid=479258544 yeah that was you. And this was you calling an editor a vandal also for editing http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Resource-based_economy&diff=prev&oldid=479344804 so, I am not finding you a person that is willing to put forth effort to compromise any point here. As to claiming I have some personal interest in you I don't, won't. I think you lost all the arguments here in general that have been made since mostly you are not providing notability of sourcing or a clear connection that the information belongs anywhere other than the Zeitgest or Venus Project or Fresco articles. An article created for the links and citations to those groups does not pass muster and no doubt previously this article was deleted as an article for deletion for that reason. I notice in the history that you created this article. 175.100.40.56 (talk) 02:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, most of your claims *are* irrelevant. The rest of them are wrong. I have multiple times explained why your various claims are incorrect. If you still don't understand why, then ask. But you instead completely ignore what I say and instead just repeat your claims over and over and over again. That is not a constructive attitude. You will need to change that attitude before we can get anywhere. You will not be able to achieve anything if you refuse to listen and learn.

While you just repeat your incorrect refuted claims and delete correct and sourced material you *are* a vandal. If you don't want to be called a vandal, stop vandalizing and start engaging in constructive discussion. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

There are no citations or information sources to the phrase Resource-based economy other than the non notable and primary source. It appears that the phrase resource-based economy is a neologism phrase made by a commercial site so it appears that it is just a connector in the article to a commercial site and that site has not been seriously written about in connection to the questions raised. While the term resource based economy may have some value to describe some aspects of place like Russia that depends on resources to fund their government it is only a neologism phrase as it is being used in the disputed material, that only works in the context of group of bloggers on the internet and therefore not mainstream and has no value beyond maybe a mention in some existing article on Fresco, like maybe his bio article.

A speedy delete of the article or Article For Deletion seems in order as it was previously deleted. The person arguing so strongly here for the phrase in the article created the article and the disputed material, apparently he thinks the argument is about him when its not. The phrase is not notable. 175.100.40.113 (talk) 14:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

You really won't get anywhere when you ignore the responses you get. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Wrong again. I addressed your issues. You soundly lost any debate here and did it in an overtly contentious way. 175.100.40.104 (talk) 02:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

IP, if you believe deletion is in order, please nominate, following the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. You will need to create an account or ask a registered user to help you create the nomination page. Repeaedly insisting an article should be deleted on its talk apge when you know others strongly disagree with you, and in the manner you're doing it, is bordering on trolling. Please desist. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell there are no sources for the disputed material being notable beyond self sourcing. Also it uses the same '-' between words which points it to only Fresco concept which is not notable for an article and not sourced here to anything beyond a closed loop, self sourced. It is not a neologism in a larger sense that other people use it minus the '-' in the word construct. 175.100.40.163 (talk) 02:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

You wrote this after I added two new sources from published academic sources. You are now simply lying. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Wrong again. Time line is wrong. Where in the source or citation does it document anything about the subject? Your two new citations are not connected to Zeitgeist, Venus Project or J. Fresco so why did you add them? I wrote most of the above before you added them but that does not make a difference since they are not citations to the subject anyway. Its a self sourced primary source that you wrote an article around, originating the article with just the primary reference. That is the original issue. Why would anyone lie over this kind of triviality? 175.100.40.163 (talk) 14:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy Delete copyright vio among other things

The article was made regardless of it being a copy vio and was speedily deleted previously for that reason 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Resource-based_economy#Resource-based_economy' It appears that the phrase is also a neologism phrase invented recently even to the point of the - (dash) in the title and is self sourced as a primary source. I do not know the mechanics of the process off speedy deleting the article again but assume that an admin person is watching this page and will put that information here or discuss that. 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CSD#G4' 175.100.40.104 (talk) 02:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

"I do not know the mechanics of the process" - No, you don't know any of Wikipedias processes or policies, and resist all attempts to teach you. Claiming this article is a copyright violation is just ridiculous. Please stop wasting peoples time with these stupidities. I for one will stop responding to these inane claims of yours until you bother to read up on basic Wikipedia policies, like WP:NOTABILITY and WP:COPYVIO. My patience has run out. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The previous article was a copy violation, but some of the same issues of notability and lack of outside sources and spam were brought up here [1]

Defending something with no sources but to itself with no serious writing about it, creating this article as a vehicle or connector to Venus Project was done but it looks like this article does not deserve an article on its own because it is covered elsewhere. Starting an article over a neologism phrase? Looks like it. 175.100.40.163 (talk) 14:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

not neologism

I was asked to look at it. I see no reason or justification for deleting the present article, The phrase is certainly not a neologism, as the seems to be many hundreds of suitable references: Just looking in WorldCat, I find over 30 items, mostly books, with that phrase in the very title. [2] GScholar has over 2,000. Clearly, a proper sourced article can be written. It might have been a good idea to have looked for sources earlier. DGG ( talk ) 18:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 March 2012

I would propose the following be used to describe Resource Based Economy

-An economic system based on direct-common ownership of land, resources, production, distribution, and allocation, characterized through non-usury (monetary) intelligent management of resources for common consumer social abundance rather than profit-based scarcity (Capitalism) or need-based scarcity (Socialism).

I'm not familiar with how the process of citing sources and so on works but i would like to cite Distributism, Antigonish Movement (Resource Based Communities) and SCUM Manifesto “Money, Marriage and Prostitution, Work and Prevention of an Automated Society”, Libertalia Pirate Colony. - 72.220.63.1 (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The sources first of all need to be sources. Of your list above, only one is actually a source, namely the SCUM Manifesto. Secondly the cited source need to be a reliable source for the stated text. I would not see Valerie Solanas as a reliable source on economics. Thirdly, the source needs to actually support the text. The SCUM manifesto, for example, does not use the term "resource-based economy" anywhere, so it does not support the text you want to add. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll deactivate the request for now. Feel free to reactivate it when you've sorted out the issues with the sources. Tra (Talk) 23:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Not notable reference

The context of Resource-based economics to Fresco, Zeitgeist, or Venus Project is not notable though a proper sourced article can be written using the many references to sources that are notable for the other concepts of that phrase which are not connected to those mentioned groups. It might have been a good idea to have looked for sources earlier. 175.100.40.163 (talk) 02:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

An editor added two reference citations to Venus Project and J. Fresco in the article. However there was no connection or mention of Zeitgeist or Fresco or Venus Project in the references. The old primary source was also added again. I have removed the non notable primary sourced material and added some new information about resource-based economy in Australia. 175.100.40.163 (talk) 03:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The claim that the sources doesn't mention Zeitgeist or Fresco or Venus Project is simply untrue. I don't know if you didn't check, or if you are again, as above, simply lying. Your actions are nothing more than vandalism. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Lying? Where do the two sources you added recently mention Zeitgeist or Fresco or Venus project?

^ John C. Danon (1994). Current world affairs, Volume 18. The University of California.? Where in that?

^ Professor Paul Pennings (2012). Herbet Marcuse – One Dimensional Man. VU University, Amsterdam. Retrieved 2012-03-05.? Where in that?

The other is just the same primary source from before. The self sourced one where Fresco claims to have invented the term Resource-based economy http://thevenusproject.com/the-venus-project/resource-based-economy 175.100.40.163 (talk) 14:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Did you try the search function on the article of Penning? Just search on "research" abd you will have found it in a second. I have requested the page protection, due to you restarting the editwar with an hour after the end of the protection. Now it is protected for two weeks. Your dismissal of the article of Prof Pennings only showed that your are just not willing to cooperate into writing an article. Continue this behaviour, and soon the blocks will come. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

1. Page 24.

2. Page 5. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

That reference by Phenning might work for Zeitgeist but does not work for Venus Project or J. Fresco. Also N.O.T.B.W. Open-Future removed some info and a source on Australian resource based economy. Also there is no page 24 in the pdf by Phenning. Because there is a second, third party source now for reference to Zeitgeist that can be included in the information on the article page, but the other reference to Fresco and Venus project still only are primary sourced. 175.100.40.163 (talk) 01:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm speechless... --OpenFuture (talk) 06:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've recovered from the shock. Danon, page 24 is the source for The Venus Project using the term. Pennings, page 5, is the source for The Zeitgeist Movement using the term. We need a better source than Pennings, because it turns out it isn't Pennings that wrote it at all, but I can't be bothered as long as the article, yet again, is fully protected because if your stupid edit-warring.

If you really have good intentions here, you should show it. And then you should do the following things:

1. Create an account. Your using loads of different IP-addresses is a pain in the ass. Since you are in fact knowledgeable enough about Wikipedia to sign your comments and use terms such as "notable" and "copyvio", I'm sure you *know* that it would be better if you create an account, so why don't you go ahead and do so?

2. Look for sources that would be acceptable to you, instead of just complain.

3. Stop deleting well sourced and uncontroversial material, just because it involves some sort of grudge you have.

4. Start asking questions when you don't understand something, instead of just going ahead and edit-warring.

If you do these things, I'm sure this can reach a good conclusion quickly. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Drafting a new version

As outsider with a rather limited knowledge of economy, I did my best to create a new draft to solve the problems on this article. You can find the draft here: User:Night of the Big Wind/Workpage17. Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

That version is OK, except that it completely lacks references. I also, honestly do not see what problems is solved. Especially since one of the stated problems is criticism of the references. The only significant change I can see, except the deletion of the references is that you have changed the bullet list to headings. I'm OK with that. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The general idea is that people will follow the supplied internal links to know more. It is also the intention to put more emphasis on the alternative use of the term, instead of giving two meanings for one expression. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The internal links are already there, except for economic model, which in fact is wrong. It isn't an economic model, really. It's really a theory/opinion/ideology. But sure, calling it an alternative use makes sense. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, replaced "Economic model" by "economic theory/ideology". In fact, it is funny. I find thousands of links to Fresco/Venusproject/Zeitgeist-related items, but I can't find a definition of the "normal" use. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

If we add sources for the statements, that's now an improvement compared to the current version IMO. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I have added some sources, and tweaked it a bit. Any more comments? Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

We can't use Fresco himself, or any other primary source, to claim that he invented the usage. It's "self-serving". :-) I'm skeptical to using the word "invent" when it comes to terms in any place. Otherwise it's fine. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Google books survey

I had a look at the first 40 hits returned by a Google books search on "resource based economy". It appears that the main definition contrasts resource-based economies with knowledge/human/service-based ones. The alternative definition is used in 4 books (10 %), 2 of which are by Fresco. That is very marginal especially concerning third parties, so the weight of the alternative definition in the article should be kept at a minimum and the article structuring/wording should not convey the impression that it is a majority definition. I don't think that the alternative definition should be completely removed, because it is still a borderline significant majority and a lot of people are probably going to be looking for that definition in particular. Olli Niemitalo (talk) 22:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It is indeed interesting to see that the alternative use of the term is used by four books in the first 20 hits (5 in the top 40, based on the summaries). Still a Google Books search on "venus project" OR fresco OR zeitgeist "resource based economy" gives 297 books, 30 hits on Google Scholar and 7800000 hits on Google Search. Certainly not something to ignore. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

BTW: have you seen my new draft, mentioned just above here? Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I saw your proposal, but I just wanted to share the survey results and be gone. Olli Niemitalo (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

'Okay, replaced "Economic model" by "economic theory/ideology". In fact, it is funny. I find thousands of links to Fresco/Venusproject/Zeitgeist-related items, but I can't find a definition of the "normal" use. Night of the Big Wind' From above.

As a reference to the articles ala what Night of the Big Wind is saying, their version is probably ok with the 'theory ideology' part adjustment. Its doubtful there is a 'normal use' because this article was crafted a certain way with the Resource-based economy phrase being spelled a certain way, the way Fresco 'invented' it, (according to Fresco http://thevenusproject.com/the-venus-project/resource-based-economy ) Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The interesting thing is that what I called "the normal use" is mainly found in books and scientific articles. Fresco/Zeitgeist/Venus Project-type use is severely underrepresented there. But with Google Search it is just the other way round. I get the idea that the use related to producing and exporting raw materials is the oldest of the two, that is why I call it "normal use". But again, I am not an economist, just some fool trying to draft a new version to stop an editwar. Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

No, you are completely right. There is definitely a "normal" academic use of the term, and then a new use after The Venus Project got all the hype some years ago, with Fresco completely unrelated usage of the term. It is unfortunate that he started using this term in this completely misleading way, but it is an effect if hi also not being an economist and also have no clue what he is talking about. :-) But it's nothing we can do anything to fix, utopianists are now talking left and right about a "Resource-based economy" and thinking it is something new and different, when it's just a new word for technocratic communism (and boy would I love it if some economist would actually write something about it). --OpenFuture (talk) 11:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Its pretty much all based on this biophysical economics with a strong dose of this history [3]. The original technocrats had nothing to do with Communism or Capitalism or Socialism etc which according to their information was not connected to resource based economics using an energy metric of value instead of money. Anyway that was the original meaning from the early 1930's, example link, [4] Earl King Jr. (talk) 09:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I just found these two things http://technocracy.org/transition/economy/279-transition-doll and this http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/zeitgeist-addendum/ Is it worth using either? Steven Doll is or at least was a member of Venus Project and Technocracy group. Fresco an ex technocrat pretty much got the idea from Technocracy source. Earl King Jr. (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how they can be labeled reliable sources for anything they say. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Steven Doll is or was a board member of Fresco's when he incorporated his ideas as Venus Project or 'Future' by design or what ever he calls it. He lives in Florida. He and Fresco are friends or so it seems. He was/is also a member of the main Technocracy group where he is an essay writer and thus an official speaker published by TechInc on their website. Earl King Jr. (talk) 16:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. See WP:RS. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

To say that the Technocracy movement uses the term resource based economy is too severe of a generalization. The over-generalization is so glaring it is nearly erroneous. I don't understand how one could think that Fresco, would pick up the phrase from Doll (a very obscure technocrat by the way), who used the term only once in one article, the single and only article of Technocracy that ever used it, and then believe that Fresco would go on to based his entire ideology around this term. Good reason should suggest the contrary: Doll used Fresco's term. In fact, I have heard recordings from 1973 in which Fresco explains this term.--Biophily (talk) 04:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The term is a spinoff of biophysical economics, energy economics and has very little to nothing to do with original thinking of Fresco. Technocracy groups probably used it one way or another, the same ideas from 1918 on. Fresco got most of his information from Technocracy groups in the mid to late 1940's. He is a former member. Steven Doll helped Fresco incorporate his ideas Google or search 'Steven Doll Venus Project'. He is was or is integral to Fresco's setting up his group and he is still a part of it it looks like. Doll may seem obscure to you but he is a known published essay writer. From the tone of your post you sound almost angry about your opinions here. Take it easy. Its a controversial subject because of the groups in questions which have cult like followings. Earl King Jr. (talk) 12:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Be sure, I'm not angry. The claim in the article just strikes me as misinformative. It's too much of a stretch. It is probably true that biophysical economics and a resource based economy represent the same idea. But there are no sources that state that, that I know of, and they are in fact two different terms that I feel no one here has the right to conflate. The article could be modified to be more specific about this issue. If it can be shown that the Technocracy movement used it much more often, or that biophysical economics is equivalent to a resource based economy by some source, then I would take no issue. If not, I recommend that the article be modified to reflect the limitedness of the fact in question.--Biophily (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Technocracy group in their official information advocate a resource based economy. Just because that is not repeated over and over does not matter. It is a part of their official information presentation on their official website http://surepost.com/igdtech/technocracy/eco1.php Accounting For Nature, by Steven Doll.

Much like the rest of the article where do you draw the line? Fresco uses the - to make resource'-'based economy, does the '-' make it a proprietary term? Something he invented? No. The people being discussed are apparent friends. What came first, the chicken or the egg and does it matter? It is a fact that Technocracy the group uses the term and it is currently a part of their information and it appears that some persons probably cross over between all the three groups mentioned though they are in no way affiliated with each other. As a former technocrat Fresco learned something while being involved with them probably. Probably the larger part of his philosophy comes from their material with different twists and turns. That is speculation but it looks that way. Just because Fresco and Zeitgeist have lots of redundant information on the same topic does not gain notability or importance. All it takes is one endorsement of an idea and published material on an official website that is current. Doll has published elsewhere. I think his full name is Steven L. Doll. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I suppose it's not worth much more push, but I look at it this way: Imagine if a communist of modest reputation used the term positively in one of his essays. Would it be right to say, "The Zeitgeist Movement and Technocracy Movement uses the term resource-based economy, as do the Communists" ?--Biophily (talk) 06:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

That is probably a bad example because of the connection of the two groups personality wise. Fresco having gotten his basic ideas from ideas of energy accounting. No connection to your example, and the essay by Doll says Converting to a resource-based economy will require a monumental change in our thinking. since he is an official speaker to Technocracy Movement the citation is proof of using the term. That is pretty blatant. Energy accounting would be a resource based economy. That is a verifiable citation. That is what counts. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

One person using the word "resource-based economy" in one article on a website does not mean that the whole movement can be said to use the term in any reasonable sense. If it would be on a Technocracy Movement FAQ, sure. If the article said "The aim of the Technocracy Movement is to reach a resource.based economy" or something like that, yes. But this is not the case here. This article is also the single article on that "Technocracy Research Library" page that uses the term. There is no basis for saying that the technocracy movement uses the term. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. That may be your opinion but you have your facts wrong. Its not just one website it is the official Technocracy website. It is not just one person, it is an official published essay writer for Technocracy. It says in black and white the same term and it is being used in the same way. The groups are historically connected though not literally connected. So, please stop removing information that is cited from the article. Even the other editor wanted to qualify the information not remove it [5] Removing a citation that proves a connection? Why? Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Because it doesn't prove a connection. Even if it is an "official essay" (it's definitely not "published" in the normal sense of Wikipedia) this does not prove that the movement as a whole uses it regularly, In fact the complete absence of the term from other technocracy materials indicates that they don't. Including this material is original research. You are not a reliable source. --OpenFuture (talk) 03:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Wrong again. Its published Published in: The Northwest Technocrat, 4th quarter 1994, No. 337. That means it goes out to libraries and other readership just like any other piece of information from an organization. It mentions the term resource-based economy It uses the term. What do you mean by regularly? Why remove the information when it can be qualified? The other editor qualified it, not removed it. You did not answer those questions. What do you mean by You are not a reliable source?. What has that got to do with anything? Why are you calling me not a reliable source? Your commenting on me and not the issue which is the source and citation and the wording and the connection. It says that the Technocracy movement uses the term. It is documented that they use the term. The criteria is not whether the whole movement which is very nebulous says it but the official information says it, published it and has stuck with that information to the current time. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly a peer-reviewed journal is it? :-) But, OK let's not argue about the definition of "published". It's practically irrelevant anyway, as the source does not claim that the Technocracy Movement uses the term. It is one article, by one person in the technocracy movement. Claiming that therefore "The Technocracy Movement" uses the term is not supported by that source.

"It is documented that they use the term." - No, it is not.

"the official information says it" - No, it does not. An article by a person in the movement is not "official information". An offical FAQ would be official information. By your logic, if say, The Rand Institute published an article where they discuss TZM / TVP and how resource-based economy is just another word for utopian techocratic communist (I can dream, can't I?) you could then claim that Rand "uses the term" which either is absurd, or reduces the meaning of "uses" to meaninglessness.

To claim that the technocracy movement uses the term, you have to have either a source that they do use it, or you need to show that they do so in "official information" or at least that the term is pervasive within the movement.

Once again: One article, by one person does not a movement make.

And since I don't want to edit war about it, and since I don't want to escalate this sort of ridiculous nonsense, please self-revert. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

No. You have no support. They use the term. It is published in Technocracy literature by them. It documents the term. If you keep referring to the exchange of ideas as ridiculous nonsense there is going to just be more trouble. You sound a lot like the last editor now that was blocked for such talk. Do not remove cited information from the article and do not try to antagonize with telling someone to self revert when you are disagreed with. Since this is a controversial article that has had lots of problems, take care not to create more. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not creating more by removing something that is incorrect. I don't know who you refer to as blocked either, btw. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Escalated: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Resource-based_economy --OpenFuture (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Not Free

The piece claims that in an RBE everything would be free. I do not know how the Zeitgeist movement looks at this but in a technocracy resources would be rationed through energy credits. So even though money would be abolished there would certainly be a limit to how much a person can acquire. 195.169.213.92 (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

latest entry

Others can please check this but it looks like an editor self translated some articles and then posted it on a Wikipedia talk page?? to use as a citation for this article [6] Also another link that did not reference resource-based economy was used. I reverted this. Comment? Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you please explain. Is the editor implying that posting editor-translated versions of foreign language articles on talk pages, and then using these translations as a reference, is improper? If indeed this is the implication, could you please point out to the exact wikipedia policy and/or regulation which makes translating, posting (on talk pages) and referencing (the translated) articles improper? Because the only relevant WP policy or regulation I came across is as follows:

From WP:PAIC#Foreign-language_quotations: "Quotations from foreign-language sources should appear in translation. Quotations that are translations should be explicitly distinguished from those that are not. Indicate the original source of a translation (if it is available, and not first published within Wikipedia), and the original language (if that is not clear from the context). If the original, untranslated text is available, provide a reference for it or include it, as appropriate."

The editor also writes: "Also another link that did not reference resource-based economy was used. I reverted this." Please note that the reference to the NYT article that you reverted not only mentioned Zeitgeist: Addendum but also included a direct link to the film -- i.e., the author of the NYT article provided the reader with an easy, quick option to watch the entire film. (The NYT article referenced the film as follows: Zeitgeist: Addendum.) The film discusses resource-based economy. (And later in the NYT article, the journalist writes: " ... safeguard the planet’s fragile resources ...")

Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Recent edit contained

• major clarification of already-existing but confusing, incorrectly-assigned references, and other problems (e.g. one technocracy-movement ref., discussing money-less economy and technological unemployment, was assigned to extractive technologies);
• cleanup of messy, ugly presentation of some of the references;
• addition of references discussing RBE; and
• very brief addition to explain basic concept of RBE.

Deleting before discussing on talk page is not the Wikipedia way. According to WP policies, it is much better to talk here first. Please discuss here if you need further explanations.

Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 20:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Please read the discussion above first. There was a long discussion about the relevance of Fresco's version of Resource Based Economy and if it warrented inclusion in this article. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Night, I've read the discussion above.

As you know, what establishes notability and relevance are mainly citations from secondary sources (with some citations from primary sources also allowed under certain restrictions, as discussed in the conversation in the Talk page above).

That's why I've added the 3 verifiable, reliable, published, independent, secondary sources discussing the alternative usage of RBE (i.e, the TZM/ TVP usage of RBE).

I'm also planning to further add references to at least two more verifiable, reliable, published, independent, secondary sources that discuss the TZM/ TVP usage of RBE.

(By the way, please also see the Peter Joseph article for the links to his 6 TV interviews. Note that he discussed RBE on his 5 TV interviews on RT as well as the TV interview on TheMarker.)

Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the first source (NYT) doesn't really mention the term resource-based economy, and none of the articles support the changes you made to the article. It's WP:SYN or WP:OR. This is a big problem when it comes to TVE, they don't really say what they want, it's just buzzwords, but I don't feel your changes improved the article. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm studying the details of your comment and will respond soon. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

(Updated 20:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)):

Dear OpenFuture, may I respectfully disagree with you. The references I cited support the changes. Please read carefully the entire text of all the references (and not only the NYT) before rushing to hasty, unwarranted conclusions. I believe that once you take the time to carefully read all the sources (Huff Post, the Palm Beach Post, TheMarker and Globes, as well as the NYT), you will agree that all these sources support my changes to the article.

Please refer to my most recent edits. I moved the references around and tried to reduce the length of the paragraph in an effort to make the material more concise and easier to read.

Regarding your allegation of WP:SYN or WP:OR, could you please be specific. Could you please identify specifically which sentence or phrase synthesizes other sentences, and identify specifically the sentences or phrases being synthesized into OR.

Until you provide a much more specific allegation, I can only guess: Are you claiming that the sentence "... advocate for a holistic socio-economic system in which all resources become the common heritage of all the inhabitants of the planet, not just a select few" is a synthesis of previous phrases into OR?

The following is a direct citation from the previously-existing (primary) reference (the webpage titled "Resource Based Economy" on The Venus Project's website):

"The term and meaning of a Resource Based Economy ... is a holistic socio-economic system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resources; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival. Modern society has access to highly advanced technology and can make available food, clothing, housing and medical care; update our educational system; and develop a limitless supply of renewable, non-contaminating energy. By supplying an efficiently designed economy, everyone can enjoy a very high standard of living with all of the amenities of a high technological society."

The following is a direct citation from the Huff Post article, in direct support of the above:

"The Venus Project distributes resources promoting Fresco's vision of an improved society, with the main component being a resource-based economy, rather than a monetary-based one. In Fresco's resource-based economy, the world's resources would be considered as the equal inheritance of all the world's peoples, and would be managed as efficiently and carefully as possible through focusing on the technological potential of sustainable development. It is toward this idea that The Zeitgeist Movement works to educate and inform people."

Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The sentence I can't find support for is "economic theory in which money, debt, exchange, private property and the profit motive would serve no purpose and human needs such as food, goods, services and information are free". This was before your edits "economic theory in which things such as goods, services and information are free". I think the old sentence was better, has less assumptions and is better supported by the sources (although new sources seems to have been added yesterday, which may change things). --OpenFuture (talk) 03:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and I edited it down from there, to get the conjecture and rhetoric out of it. That section should not be bigger, as an alternative section than the main section. Also the editor posted again a foreign to English language link that he or she self translated and posted on a Wikipedia talk page. That can not be a citation. Wikipedia is not a reliable source and especially using a Wikipedia talk page as a reference point can not be right.

I think that section could still be edited down more from where it is, the alternative use section that is. As was pointed out above the references are not applicable that were added and could be removed Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

"... to get the conjecture and rhetoric out of it. That section should not be bigger, as an alternative section than the main section."

"... a foreign to English language link that he or she self translated and posted on a Wikipedia talk page. That can not be a citation."

You are expressing your own personal opinions, not facts. I respect your right to hold personal interpretations or opinions, but they do not belong here.

Can you support your allegation that "... That can not be a citation" with a direct quotation from a Wikipedia policy, rule or regulation?

You have expressed the same personal opinions previously, on 12 May 2012. I responded to your original comment on the same day. In my response, I've quoted directly from the relevant Wikipedia policy on translations.

Today, you have again ignored the relevant Wikipedia policy and instead repeated your previous personal interpretation or opinion from May 12.

Please note that Wikipedia articles are based on citations from verifiable, reliable secondary sources (with some support from primary ones), including translations. Not on personal interpretations or opinions.

With respect to your concern regarding the location of the translations on a talk page, I've placed them there based on the advice of an experienced editor. If you would like to propose an alternative location (folder) to store the translations, your proposals would be most welcome and will be discussed and considered fully on this talk page.

And finally, please recall that deleting before discussing is not the wikipedia way. Wikipedia policies clearly state that it is much better to discuss on the talk page before taking action that can result in an edit war.

Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

User:IjonTichyIjonTichy, you react to feedback and criticism with innuendo and personal comments and baseless claims like "personal opinion" and claims that we didn't read the articles, etc. That is not a constructive way of discussing the issues. You need to learn that comments about what you add are not personal attacks on you, cool down and start discussing this in a calm and constructive manner, and not try to turn everything into a a fight about whose penis is bigger. --OpenFuture (talk) 03:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

A current editor (User:IjonTichyIjonTichy) to this article translated a link from a foreign language piece and used that as a citation. The citation is a Wikipedia talk page and the editor (User:IjonTichyIjonTichy) may or may not be an accredited 'translator'. Wikipedia is not a reliable source to use as a citation source regardless. Remove the citations a good idea now? This one [7] Also the level of citations are at major spam level now. One or two citations are needed to confirm something. Earl King Jr. (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

What's wrong with this version?

I like this version: [8] The recent changes hasn't really added much useful things to it. Can someone explain what's wrong with the old version, so we can improve it? The new one just adds an insane amount of citations, and some unsupported/unsourced expansion that seems quite POV to me. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear OpenFuture, I agree: it is best to discuss this in a calm and constructive manner.

And yes, describing TVP's, TZM's and TTM's usage of the term RBE as an "economic theory in which things such as goods, services and information are free" is correct.

But it is only partially correct, because it only captures one part (although an important part) of the TVP, TZM and TTM usage of the term RBE.

The problem is that "things such as goods, services and information are free" is not a full representation of all the important, basic, essential, fundamental concepts of TVP's, TZM's and TTM's usage of the term RBE.

As editors can clearly see from studying all the references, the TVP, TZM and TTM usage of the term RBE implies much more than just "things such as goods, services and information are free".

The current article should be further expanded significantly (but very concisely) to capture all the fundamental concepts of TVP's, TZM's and TTM's usage of the term RBE, based on citations from the set of verifiable sources.

Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

You can't do that, you need to find one or perhaps a few sources to do that. At the moment you are trying to say something in the article that is your personal point of view, extracted from and supported from a long list of sources where none of them supports what you say, That's WP:SYN and is not allowed. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

So I've reverted to the last good version. Let's discuss the changes you want to do based on that. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

A current editor (User:IjonTichyIjonTichy) to this article translated a link from a foreign language piece and used that as a citation. The citation is a Wikipedia talk page and the editor (User:IjonTichyIjonTichy) may or may not be an accredited 'translator'. Wikipedia is not a reliable source to use as a citation source regardless. Remove the citations a good idea now? This one [9] Also the level of citations are at major spam level now. One or two citations are needed to confirm something. Earl King Jr. (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear Earl King Jr., it seems that for the third time in a row you may have ignored everything I wrote above in response to your comments.

Wikipedia has a relevant WP policy on translations, as I explained above.

If you feel that the two specific translations provided here violate the wikipedia policy, you will need to provide solid proof, and not just personal opinions (such as using the term "accredited", which does not appear anywhere in the official WP policy on translations) and barely-hidden innuendo (such as placing 'translator' in single quotes).

If you wish, you can provide your own translations of the articles. Several automatic translation services are provided freely online, such as Google Translate (and others).

Wikipedia provides several avenues for you to state a formal complaint and request that wikipedia formally announce that the two translations are, as you opine, "not a reliable source".

Until we hear from official, authorized wikipedia sources that there is solid proof that the two specific translations provided here are in clear violation of existing specific wikipedia policies, rules and regulations (such as this WP policy), then, based on all existing wikipedia policies, rules and regulations, (for example WP:AGF and translations), we can continue to use the translations.

As I commented above, the current article should be further expanded significantly (but very concisely) to capture all the fundamental concepts of TVP's, TZM's and TTM's usage of the term RBE, based on citations from the full set of verifiable sources, including the translations.

Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Open Future that the previous version Open Future restored is fine, appropriate, and gets the job done. IjonTichyIjonTichy wants to greatly expand this article when the section in question is only an alternative meaning to something. Right now the article contains citations and links to all of those sites connected with or to the players mentioned in the article in question. If anything that section could be smaller not bigger.

Also I wish someone would comment on IjonTichyIjonTichy translating a page and then posting it on Wikipedia as a viable citation. I would add that that citation is super overkill information anyway. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, using talk pages with self translated articles??, as a citation? No. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the translations, it seems you may be complaining about two issues.

It seems that the first issue you may be complaining about is the physical location of the (translations of the) secondary sources.

It seems that the second issue you may be complaining about is that the secondary sources were translated by a Wikipedia (WP) editor [whom, as you mentioned in the past, "may or may not be an accredited 'translator' (sic)", although you have neglected to specify exactly what you mean by the term "accredited" as it can be open to a wide range of interpretation].

In the sequel, I'll try to address both of your complaints.

Regarding the first issue - the issue of physical location:

You are right that a Wikipedia (WP) article is not a reliable source. But any reliable secondary (and in some cases primary) sources referenced within WP articles can still be used as reliable secondary sources for other WP articles.

There is a big difference between a WP article and a (translation of a) reliable secondary source. Storing a (translation of a) reliable secondary source on some folder on some talk page does not automatically turn that (translation of a) reliable secondary source into a WP article. A WP article is a very, very different entity than a (translation of a) reliable secondary source.

In other words, the physical location of the (translation of the) reliable secondary source is irrelevant. The (translation of the) reliable secondary source remains a (translation of a) reliable secondary source regardless of whether it is stored on a WP talk page, or some other page within WP, or a page off-site (off WP). The physical location of the source does not change the characteristics of the source, i.e., the quality of the source. (This is equivalent to saying that the quality of the source is invariant to the physical location. [You may also want to see this and, more generally, this on invariance.]) Based on WP policies, rules and regulations, the only things that matter to WP are the characteristics of the source, i.e., the quality of the source: the source's reliability and verifiability (and of course relevancy, etc).

Regarding the second issue - the issue of the article being translated by a WP editor:

Please see the following two WP policies: WP policy on translations and WP:Translation. Note that the first policy fully applies to our current discussion, but the second policy (WP:Translation) does not exactly fully apply to our current discussion, because WP:Translation is focused on the translation of foreign-language WP articles into the English WP; it does not discuss the translation of foreign-language sources (primary or secondary sources) into English. However, WP:Translation is the only other WP policy I could find on translations (in addition to WP policy on Foreign-language_quotations).

Note that your term "accredited" does not appear anywhere in these two official WP policies. (And, as I commented above, you have not specified exactly what you mean by the term "accredited" as it can be open to a wide range of interpretations).

In fact, WP:Translation even encourages students to work on translating foreign-language WP articles into English as student projects. (However, as I said before, translating foreign-language WP articles is not the same as translating foreign-language sources.)

In other words, from both WP policy on foreign-language translations and WP:Translation, it seems that WP policies call for the community to assume good faith in its editors when it comes to translations from foreign languages into English.

In fact, it is a general policy of WP to assume good faith, unless there are hard facts and very strong evidence to assume otherwise. (In other words, we must assume innocence until proven guilty.)

Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The citations should IMO be to the original article. A translation could be provided as well, but unless the translation is done by a reliable source, it's not useful as a source. To be honest I don't think Wikipedia talk pages are the place to publish those translations. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry OpenFuture, I respect your POV, but disagree with you completely. There is no POV or SYN in the article. All the sources fully support everything in the article.

In your previous comment you posed the question: "Can someone explain what's wrong with the old version, so we can improve it?"

In my response to your comment, I answered your question. But you seem to have ignored my answer and instead it seems you have proceeded to revert my edits on your repeated allegation that my edits contained SYN, POV and/or OR.

I am becoming increasingly puzzled and surprised at both your comments and your actions. It seems to me that if an editor would have invested the (admittedly considerable) amount of time to carefully study all the references, and to fully comprehend and understand everything in the references, it would be clear to the editor that everything in the article is fully supported by the references, and that there is no SYN, POV nor OR. (Except that there may or may not be some journalistic bias on the part of the journalists who wrote the secondary sources. Note that Wikipedia [WP] policies prohibit WP editorial bias, but do not prohibit [some] bias from the authors of verifiable, reliable secondary sources, such as journalists, scholars, book authors, etc. If you are unclear on this, you can look it up in the WP policies, rules and regulations.)

Either you have not taken the time to carefully read all articles, or you have read them but did not comprehend them (perhaps because you are not keeping an open mind, possibly because you may be focused on censoring this article. See below.)

In my original response to your comment, I explained that describing TVP's, TZM's and TTM's usage of the term RBE as an "economic theory in which things such as goods, services and information are free" is only partially correct, because it only captures one part (although an important part) of TVP's, TZM's and TTM's usage of the term RBE. I also wrote the following:

The problem is that "things such as goods, services and information are free" is not a full representation of all the important, basic, essential, fundamental concepts of TVP's, TZM's and TTM's usage of the term RBE. As editors can clearly see from studying all the references, the TVP, TZM and TTM usage of the term RBE implies much more than just "things such as goods, services and information are free".

Please also note that the term "things such as goods, services and information are free" can also describe a prison camp, a jail, a gulag, certain forms of concentration camps, and other places of detention or confinement.

Or military service. Or a boarding school.

Narrowing, constricting and limiting the description of the core ideas and positions of TVP, TZM and TTM to "things such as goods, services and information are free" is an insult to the people we are here to serve - the hundreds of millions of readers of the English Wikipedia around the globe. And it is an insult to the editors of this page (including you and me).

Update: I've revised the article to concisely capture most of the fundamental concepts of TVP's, TZM's and TTM's usage of the term RBE, based on citations from our set of sources.

Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 22:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

You are unfortunately refusing to engage in constructive debate. This is unfortunate, and means we will have to start a conflict resolution process, which I will do as soon as I have time. It would be much better if we instead could start from the last good version and discuss what you think is wrong with it and how we can improve it. But you are apprently not interested in that. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I think its safe to say that IjonTichyIjonTichy is overboard here editing in an overkill fashion lots of almost promo-advertisement quality add on's and the article can be reverted back to the last good version which is here: [10] The recent change is not an improvement and the editor making the changes IjonTichyIjonTichyseems unwilling to listen to feedback here.

This is just an idea but maybe IjonTichyIjonTichy could write a book on this subject outside of Wikipedia since he seems like an expert for the point of view of the two groups mentioned, but here in the article its just not right to construct an article that assumes like an endorsement, so maybe its best to lay off and just allow the revert to the last good version for all the reasons given by editors in this section of this talk page. Earl King Jr. (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks you for the feedback, but regretfully it is both of you who are refusing to engage in the constructive development of this article.

Both of you repeatedly issue the same POV and you continue to focus on minor, trivial, marginal issues that just act to waste everybody's time (such as seeking the disqualification of the translations of reliable secondary sources based on wholly imagined, invented trivial technicalities involving the physical location of the translations, or based on doubting the 'qualification' of an editor who is also a native Hebrew speaker and writer to translate from Hebrew; and other time-wasters).

I've provided you with feedback several times, but you continue to disregard the substance of my comments.

For example, your write that "unless the translation is done by a reliable source, it's not useful as a source." You are voicing a personal opinion, instead of relying on the relevant WP policies on translations. I provided you with the links to the two relevant WP policies (above). You have either not bothered to read the relevant WP policies, or you have read them but ignored them, or you have read them but did not fully understand them, or you have read and understood the policies, but you do not understand that WP policies always take precedent over personal opinions. Because it seems you may be under the impression that your own personal opinions override WP policies.

As a second example, I provided a very detailed explanation of why your suggested version of this article is an insult to the readership of wikipedia, but you have disregarded the substance of my explanation in your most recent comments, and instead you continue to push for the same skeletal, clearly un-encyclopedic, undeveloped, censored, ugly version of the article.

I welcome the dispute resolution process. Bring it on. I have nothing to worry about, because everything in my citations from reliable sources is in full compliance with all WP policies, rules and regulations, and all my edits are fully supported by our set of reliable references. WP articles are based on citations from reliable sources in order to provide encyclopedic knowledge and information to our readers. WP articles are not authored in order to serve the needs of editors who prefer to artificially censor, obstruct, narrow or constrict access to freely-available, abundant encyclopedic knowledge and information.

Your comments over the last several weeks and especially the last few days, (and your actions such as deletions of citations from reliable sources, in direct disregard of my clear explanation that an edit war is counter-productive and that it is not the wikipedia way) reveal that you may suffer from a profound lack of understanding of how WP articles are authored. (Your lack of understanding may be willful or innocent - it does not matter anymore at this point, because the impact of your lack of understanding is the same whether it is intentional or not.)

You may want to take the (considerable amount of) time to carefully and deeply study all WP policies, rules and regulations before proceeding to dispute resolution, because it seem that either you may not be aware of, or maybe you are aware but perhaps you do not fully understand, (or pretend not to understand - it does not matter anymore at this late stage whether your lack of comprehension is real or not) the intricate set of details that successful, productive editors need to master.

For one example among the many WP policies, rules and regulations that it seems you may not yet have had a chance to study carefully and deeply, you may want to study the WP policy on how to mine a source.

But, as I said already, you absolutely must study all policies carefully before you continue to waste your time, my time, and the time of the wider WP community.

Your ignorance of how WP works is profound, and it must be ameliorated immediately before we can re-engage in a productive discussion on this talk page, because frankly I'm beginning to suspect that the two of you may (or may not) possibly be, perhaps, something like a pair of bored high-school students who don't have a clue and are here just to waste everybody's time. Or maybe you have good intentions, but your deep ignorance of the policies, rules and regulations leads you to believe that your personal opinions may override the policies.

Other hints pointing at the possible immaturity and/or laziness of this pair of people include: (a) Some of your deletions of the citations from reliable sources have been quite sloppy and messy (several times in reverting your unwarranted deletions I had to invest extra time removing duplicate references and performing other clean-up of your sloppy copy-and-paste efforts). You need to learn to preview your "work" carefully before pressing the 'save page' button. (b) The immature, childish call for an editor to write a book. And (c) quoting from the last comment above by Earl, " ... on the point of view of the two groups mentioned ..." The editor again shows his ignorance, because three groups, and not just two, use the alternative definition of RBE.

Thus, I'm not going to waste any more time responding to your opinions. (However, I'll be glad to respond to external editors during the conflict resolution process.)

Future deletions of citations from reliable sources, which is a violation of existing WP policies, will be reported as attempted vandalism, and a request will be made to block you from further editing this article.

IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

You now declare that you will not engage in constructive discussion, and also insult and attack your fellow editors. Dispute resolution at this point is meaningless. If you continue like this we'll have to bring your behavior to administrator attention as your behavior now is completely unacceptable. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I did not declared that.

I only declared I will not waste my time with those people who only provide opinions instead of hard facts and strong evidence, those who ignore the substance of my comments, those who only focus on minor, trivial side issues instead of substance and core issues, those who don't bother carefully reading all the resources before deleting citations from these resources, those who did not bother studying all the wikipedia policies, rules and regulations (and suffer from a profound mis-understanding of what WP is), those who believe that their opinions override well-established wikipedia policies, those who did not bother to do any of the hard work necessary to, for example, research, find, study, evaluate, analyze and employ new reliable resources to help improve the article, those who did not bother to carefully cite from existing reliable sources in order to improve the article, and those who are wasting everybody's time with empty, substance-free 'discussions' instead of actually contributing to the development of this encyclopedia: in other words, those who seem single-mindedly focused on keeping this article in its skeletal, ugly, un-encyclopedic form in perpetuity. And this is only a partial list (see all my comments above).

Every WP editor has the right not to waste his or her time with censors/ obstructionists/ major time-wasters, such as OpenFuture, Earl King, Tom Harrison, etc. (There are many WP editor user pages which describe this fundamental, basic right in more details. For one example among many, you may want to see My views on Wikipedia, by User:Someguy1221.)

I will gladly engage in constructive discussion with people who have real, concrete, substantive suggestions for improvement of the article. For example, I fully intend to carefully read, and comment on, Arthurfragoso's comment below. I will also participate in a conflict resolution process. (Again, you ignored what I wrote in my previous comment on my full willingness to participate in conflict resolution.)

IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

In other words, you will have constructive discussion with those who agree with you, but not with those who disagree, which you simply dismiss as only presenting "opinions", while you view your ramblings as unquestionable facts. Well, that attitude isn't going to work in Wikipedia. Just so you know. You are going to engage in constructive debate with *everyone* no matter that you think they are complete idiots. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

No, that is not what I said. In the past, I have gladly engaged with those who disagreed with me on the other WP articles I edited. And I'll gladly continue to engage, and learn and grow from, any editor, independent of whether they agree or disagree with me. You have again disregarded everything I wrote in my last comment, and indeed my last several comments, explaining in detail why I will not engage with censors/ obstructionists/ time-wasters like yourself.

And I have never used the term 'idiot', nor have I ever implied the usage of this term. All my comments are directed at your comments and edits on this article, and not on anything more than that. This was your own choice of words.

You need to grow up and understand that you are dealing with adults here, not children, and these adults can easily see through your juvenile and/or Orwellian tactics (censoring, obstructing, ignoring the substance of my comments, twisting my comments, attributing to me things which I have not said nor had any intention of saying, etc.)

IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

And yet more personal attacks. And that ends the discussion for this time. I do not discuss with people whose main arguments are insults. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

What is not vandalism

Nothing intended to improve the page is vandalism. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Definition

Some other definition given by Peter, at the ZDay Vancover 2012 he referred to it as a "Natural Law Economy", and at TEDxOjai he referred to it as an "Earth Economy", and he gave this same definition:

"Natural Law Economy"/"Earth Economy": (Theoretical) Decisions are directly based upon Scientific Understandings as they relate to optimized habitat management and human health. Production and Distribution is regulated by the most technically efficient and sustainable approaches known.

"Market Economy": Decisions are based on independent human actions through the vehicle of monetary exchange, regulated by the pressures of Supply and Demand. Production and Distribution is enabled by the buying and selling of labor and material provisions, with the motivations of a person or group as the defining attribute of unfolding. Source: ZDay Vancover 2012 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZE6HGjnfzc&t=25m0s (at 25m 0s) TEDxOjai 2012 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qKAse8388k&t=1m24s (at 1m 24s)

and from everything that I saw from TZM, the moneyless society is not the main definition,, it's a secondary thing, from all that I have seen, the main definition is "the goal of optimized quality of life for all through scientific understandings" and then the moneyless society will end up being the result of this line of thought.

you can also see this in the Zeitgeist: Moving Forward at 1h 30m 37s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w&t=1h30m37s

"Well, first we need a “goal”, right? And it's safe to say that goal would be to survive. And not to just survive, but to do so in an optimized, healthy prosperous way. Most people, indeed, desire to live and they would prefer to do so without suffering. Therefore, the basis of this civilization needs to be as supportive and hence sustainable for human life as possible- taking into account the material needs of all the world's people while trying to remove anything that can could hurt us in the long run.

With that goal of “Maximum Sustainability” understood next question regards our “method”. What kind of approach do we take? ...." (and then he concludes) "...

It appears something called “Science”. Science is unique in that its methods demand not only that ideas proposed be tested and replicated... but everything science comes up with is also inherently falsifiable."

this is my two cents :) do you guys think we are going in the right direction to get the best definition? --Arthurfragoso (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

It would be nice if they abandoned RBE as the name for the concept, so the two concepts doesn't clash.

However, the new definitions are highly problematic for Wikipedia. When I before has in vain searched for an explanation of how RBE differs from socialistic technocracy, the new definitions simply claim that the economy should be run according to what Science says is the best way. Since the scientific understandings of the issue is that Market Economy is the best way to achieve the stated goals, the question then becomes how Earth Economy differs from Market Economy and why they insist in claiming that Earth Economy is anti-market and anti-capitalistic, when these new definitions clearly are not.

And I think that illustrated the problem with the new definitions. They just state the goals, not the means, and hence it's not a definition of an economy or an economic theory, instead it becomes a political statement. With these definitions RBE/Earth Economy is no longer an economic theory, it's simply political mumbo-jumbo, and they then no longer have any economic theory.

I like that they clearly state the goals, and leave it to economists to best say how to get there. That's very good, politics should be goal-oriented. It's good for TZM if they start using these definitions consistently. But it gets tricky for Wikipedia, since what they claim is an economic theory instead becomes is an ideology. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I got your line of thought. What about the definition being something like: "TZM defines it as the goal of optimized quality of life for all through scientific understandings. And TZM concludes to be using automation to generate abundance, and then be able to have a moneyless society. But there is disagreements saying that this doesn't match with what science has shown us." --Arthurfragoso (talk) 17:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

There is disagreement on whether the earth is thousands or billions years old as well. There will always be disagreement. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be a fallacy? maybe a hasty generalization?

From what I'm seeing the last example of definition seems pretty neutral, it's saying what TZM thinks and concludes, and we are not saying if they are right or wrong. --Arthurfragoso (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the new definitions? They just state the goals, not the means, and hence it's not a definition of an economy or an economic theory, instead it becomes a political statement. With these definitions RBE/Earth Economy is no longer an economic theory, it's simply political mumbo-jumbo, and thats all it is. Just because someone wants to use Wikipedia as a platform for making obscure statements about their opinions on a big computer running the world, and claims about their being abundant resources for all, that does not make it obligatory to give that 'mission statement' as a given or fact. That would not be neutral. I think keep things simple. Let people go to the respective articles if they are interested in more information. That section is only an alternative usage type section. The last good version restoration does the job without baggage. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear Arthurfragoso,

Please note the header on the very top of this talk page. The header states, among other things: "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject."

Arthur, you were perfectly right to state: "... the last example of [the] definition [of RBE] seems pretty neutral, it's saying what TZM [and, may I add, TVP and TTM] thinks and concludes, and we are not saying if they are right or wrong." Exactly. This was exactly my intention in composing that definition: to maintain neutrality, and to base the definition of RBE directly, and exclusively, on citations from our set of reliable sources.

Also note that my very last edit even removed the term 'socio-economic system' and instead I just used the term 'system'.

Now note that the censors on this page (who will remain, for now, un-named in order to protect the guilty) have not responded to the substance of your argument (that my definition of RBE is neutral, and that it is fully supported by the set of sources), and instead the censors are, once again, using the talk page of the article as a forum for general discussion of the article's subject, instead of discussing specific, concrete, substantive issues directly related to improving the encyclopedic content of the article.

And yes, you are correct: it is not rare for censors to resort to every fallacy and hasty generalization to justify their censorship.

These are classic techniques employed by numerous censors/ obstructionists on hundreds, if not thousands, of WP articles over the last 12 years, including the obstructionists on resource-based economy over the last several months. They have employed these techniques, and similar techniques and stratagems to distract and evade discussion of substantive issues many times before in their comments on the talk page of the RBE article, in order to block any substantive encyclopedic development of the article.

Meanwhile, the current, skeletal version of the article still defines TTM's, TVP's and TZM's definition of RBE as "an economic theory in which things such as goods, services and information are free." Which, as I explained earlier in a comment that was conveniently ignored by the censors, is a meaningless, empty statement that could also describe a prison camp, a jail, a gulag, certain forms of concentration camps, and other places of detention or confinement. Or military service. Or an orphanage.

That's exactly why WP respects the right of editors to ignore obvious censors/ obstructionists.

You may also want to read this invaluable set of insights.

Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 04:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

"That's exactly why WP respects the right of editors to ignore obvious censors/ obstructionists." - Sure, but I'd prefer to not ignore you. It would be better if you engaged in constructive discussion instead. Although you seem less and less interested in that. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

It's obvious that everyone discussing here wants the best for the article. So I will try to keep good faith on everyone. I maybe wrong about what I think is best for the article, or any of you could also, or maybe everyone here including me could all be wrong. I took what some of you said in this discussion, and I'm taking it in consideration, so I will point some other things:

1. Resource-based economy == Post-scarcity ? we cannot say that by ourselves, we need a primary source to say that. from the WP rules. (if we decide to remove it, we could place it on the "See also")

2. From what I have seen, the definition given by Fresco is that it's planned based on available resources and optimum to human health, so we could make it sustainable, and able to provide for everyone.

I made another definition, what are your thoughts on it?

---

The term resource-based economy defines a moneyless system where decisions are made based on available resources, and it's planned to be used in a sustainable way, so the resources don't deplete. It's a system where machines would do most of the work.[11] This use of the term is found in the books and lectures of Jacque Fresco, a structural engineer and industrial designer. Fresco has used the term since 1975 in relation to The Venus Project.[6] The Zeitgeist Movement also uses the term resource-based economy as does the Technocracy Movement.[7]

---

--Arthurfragoso (talk) 23:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear Arthurfragoso, I fully agree with your point (1) and point (2) above.

None of the sources that I've used in my edits (NYT, HuffPo, Palm Beach Post, Orlando Sentinel, Globes, TheMarker, 5 RT TV interviews, 1 TheMarker TV interview) equated RBE to post-scarcity. This supports your argument that we cannot say that RBE is the same as post-scarcity. (That does not mean that there is not significant overlap. But we cannot say they are the same.)

I also agree with your point (2).

Regarding your definition, it is on the right track. I like it.

However, do you feel your definition fully captures the true essence of RBE? It is my understanding that the most important characteristic of RBE is that it is a holistic global system in which all resources become the common heritage of all the inhabitants of the planet. This key concept is fully supported by our sources, for example [6] and [7].

Your definition correctly mentions moneyless. What is your view regarding other important fundamental concepts of RBE --- according to TTM, TVP and TZM, an RBE is also a classless and stateless global system in which debt, credit, exchange, barter, wage labor (or any other system of servitude), private property and the profit motive would, according to TTM, TVP and TZM, serve no purpose and food, goods and services, etc., would be provided free of charge.

Your definition does a good job discussing " ... where decisions are made based on available resources, and it's planned to be used in a sustainable way, so the resources don't deplete. It's a system where machines would do most of the work."

What is your view on the following - should the definition also mention the following?

According to TTM, TVP and TZM, the premise upon which RBE is based is that the intelligent application of highly advanced science and technology has enabled an Earth that is now abundant with plentiful resources, enabling, according to TTM, TVP and TZM, a high standard of living for all of the Earth's inhabitants.

All of the above characteristics of RBE that I mentioned in this comment (including everything in your definition) are fully supported by the set of sources mentioned above.

Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 04:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

"None of the sources that I've used in my edits equated RBE to post-scarcity." - "equated" no. But they do say that RBE is a post-scarcity theory, if they say anything at all.

1. Huffington post: "Fresco imagines a world of abundance, where everything is available to everyone." That's post-scarcity. In a scarce world, everything is not available to everyone. That's more or less the definition of scarcity.

2. NY Times: Does not mention resource-based economy at all and is hence useless as a source in this article.

3. Palm Beach Post: Doesn't say anything concrete about RBE except that there will be no money.

4. Globes: Doesn't say anything concrete about RBE except that there will be no money, but mentions that you will able to just "choose" your house, implying post-scarcity.

5. The Marker: Also does not say anything about what RBE is above that it's "based on resources, not money" which of course says absolutely nothing.

So those few sources we do have that actually say anything about RBE makes it quite clear that it is a post-scarcity theory. Although they are also fond of claiming it'snot socialism or communism, they do however completely fail to explain what the difference is. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

@Arthurfragoso: TVP's own page on RBE says that they want to "overcome scarcity". It is therefore clear that it is a post-scarcity theory. And reasonably, TVP themselves must be the most reliable source on what they mean with RBE. :-) I do thing the article should not say "The term resource-based economy or Post scarcity" because it equates them, and TVP doesn't say post-scarcity very often. My proposal is:

The term resource-based economy is also used for a post-scarcity economic theory in which things such as goods, services and information are free. This use of the term is found in the books and lectures of Jacque Fresco, a structural engineer and industrial designer. Fresco has used the term since 1975 in relation to The Venus Project. The Zeitgeist Movement also uses the term resource-based economy in this meaning, as does the Technocracy Movement.

How's that? --OpenFuture (talk) 07:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

@OpenFuture, thanks for taking the time and researching

I'm not really sure,

If we concludes that a "overcome scarcity" is a post-scarcity, aren't we drawing a conclusion by ourselves?? Is it okay to we do it???

to exemplify: I know there are many similar things to communism (or maybe it's the same thing), but we cannot write it is communism on wikipedia by ourselves without a source . So the same to post-scarcity.

I have discussed about Post-scarcity and the RBE with some friends, and I at least conclude that it would not be a true post-scarcity. One of my friends asked: What if I wanted a helicopter? or a boat?

well, if we had a true post-scarcity, we could just have a 3D printer that could print big things and do the job.

but from what I understand, in the RBE that Jacque talks about, for things like that, we would share it. (the example they give us, is to be like a library)

I heard many times by TZM that it also needs a change in the culture. we would not be able to have billions of people owning helicopters. (at least not in this current time)

I like to refer to it with this quote: “The world has enough for everyone's need, but not enough for everyone's greed.” ― Mahatma Gandhi

but maybe a post-scarcity already says to share, so we can have abundance. but we are probably doing anOR.

another point, if we look at what Jacque said in an interview in 1974 (video at 1h 44m 53s), he said that a RBE could be built with what they had at that time, so at that time, I think it would be much more like a communism working towards a post-scarcity than a post-scarcity itself. But it would still be defined as RBE by Jacque.

So I think if we want to write that it's a post-scarcity, we should find a source that clearly says it's a Post-scarcity.

@IjonTichyIjonTichy

I made that short definition first to see what others here would think. I do think we can get some of what you wrote, but I think we have to somehow rewrite to fit it better.

from my point of view, it's good to we know that it's "According to TTM, TVP and TZM", but I think you wrote "According to TTM, TVP and TZM" too many times. We probably can reduce that.

I want to make some other points to things that we should think about when writing the definition, but I will do it latter, due to a lack of time. --Arthurfragoso (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Arthurfragoso 100 percent on everything he wrote above.

Arthur, I'm not sure whether you had a chance to take a look at WP:DRN, it is my impression we may be making good progress there. It seems we are agreeing on some things there.

Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 01:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Obvious conclusions are OK. I think that conclusion is obvious, but if others disagree... The descriptions of RBE you get from your friend disagree with what TVP writings on the subject say. On other other hand, those writings seem to a large part disagree with themselves, which is part of the problem here. If it was true post-scarcity you could get a dress made entirely out of natural diamond. True post-scarcity is simply physically impossible. I think the different variations of RBE in regards to how "true" post-scarcity it is may depend on who you talk to, and how aware they are of the nature of scarcity. --OpenFuture (talk) 02:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)