Talk:Mutualism (economic theory)
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mutualism (economic theory) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 1 year  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small} | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Ripple Monetary System edit
Under the mutual credit heading, it is claimed that ripple monetary system satisfies the definition. No citations are provided. Ripple in practice does not satisfy this definition. This looks like crypto spam to me.
It would need a citation at a minimum. It should also have a reference to counter view that it is not, in practice, a mutual credit system, even with IOUs. For example, the fact that there are transit fees, that you need to have trust lines (contrast with a LETS where trust is inherent and it therefore is much more 'mutual').
I'm neither inclined nor qualified to fix this. I hesitate to remove it because it could, in theory, be a mutual credit system after a kind, with regard to IOUs. I highly suspect this is just astroturfing by person or persons associated with ripple. The ripple monetary system page makes no mention of this aspect. I think it should be removed, but a citation needed notice is sufficient to bring attention to the veracity of this claim.
Recent rewrites edit
Hey @Libertatia: I noticed you have been criticising this article in the talk page for well over a decade at this point, which from what I gather seem to be pointing out problems with synthesis and original research. I recently removed a lot of the more problematic sections of the article[1] and then rewrote most of the history section and the lead.[2] (I eventually plan to rewrite the "Theory" section too) As you have expert familiarity with the subject matter, I wanted to make sure I checked in with you on the changes I made and ensure this article is the best quality it can be. Are there any places I've gone wrong? Have I missed out on any areas? Are the sources I used reliable for this subject? I would be happy to hear any advice you have to give on this. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:49, 25 December 2023 (UTC)