A wiki page for jacob/ERE

[Fish]

@Eureka - The page cannot be temporarily hidden, though I can stop editing it (which bumps it to the top of the recent changes list). I suggest editing the JLF talk page, indicating your concerns with the article and your intent to fix them. Registering an account is *highly recommended* but not required.

I would greatly appreciate it if anyone would clean up after my noob attempt to write in Danish. (No offense taken from the comments )

@prog - I don’t think notability is a concern. To date, the best reliable sources in English are the articles in The Edge and Moneyweek and these are a rather superficial coverage of JLF/ERE in my opinion. One of the reasons for starting a Danish wiki page was to make and support more substantial claims than could be done in English.

[Fish]

I will be happy to edit it into a more suitable form. However, I don't have any time for this until Saturday

Can you please confirm that you are working on this, or still intend to?

[Stahlmann]

OK, somebody told me to ask questions, so... firstly, this is not about stalking (if it's for you, just delete post and contact me I'm curious on personal level), just this would be probably huge in terms of gaining recognizability (for article on wiki)

under what name did jacob post info about systemic dangers of index investing on wiki? jacob claims to be first to do so, but no direct sign apart post here (at least after 6-7k post). history and talk (of "index investing" in English) don't contain user who would resemble jacob (no jacob username, no nick based on Star Trek etc., no sign of writing style - yep, this evolved prolly during years)

yes, as it's in investing (and in every other discpline). you know something valuabale - you don't share this, but jacob mentioned he did this.

the same for systemic integration of models in climat change topic.
are there papers for that in recognizable journals/books? nobody was smart to do so up to 2005. even club of rome sponsored by bastards I hate?!
is it in this "final energy crisis book" mainly? (edit: nope, this isn't here)

edit2:
here is something
http://www.sustainablemethods.org/index ... solutions/
anyway, "average smart joe" will prolly ask for peer review articles (no such on climate change using Princeton's Library, only those on physics).

for most aspiring middle class members/"other serious citizens" (getting screwed by... ok, this isn't topic for this) idea of riding bicycle from your small rented apartment to work after preparing food for yourself prolly won't generate much attention.

[jacob]

@Stahlmann - I talked about the systemic dangers to indexing on the blog before someone else did it(*) on wiki and I did that on a time when the issues were not generally recognized (meaning you couldn't google yourself to very many hits). That doesn't mean I was the first in the world to recognize these dangers. There's a concept called multiple discovery which happens all the time for stuff that's relevant to the zeitgeist. To become the one associated with something you have to do more than write a couple of blog posts ... Here it would probably require a) being famous enough to get invited on CNBC and make the call; b) make 8-9 figures on it; and/or c) publish a prediction that is widely read or will be widely read. Lets say 2 out of 3 of those. An article on Seeking Alpha wouldn't do it.

(*) Which is not really saying much.

Ditto about integrating energy resources into climate change models. This was something people started talking about in the late zeroes as climate scenarios presumed increasing emissions whereas at the same time it was becoming clear than conventional oil had peaked (this was before the fracking boom). Integrated assessment models (which are now more standard in climate science) have been known for much longer than that.

Both are a case of "Hey, there's a problem here ... " but notability requires a good deal more than noticing and making some noise to the effect of saying "maybe someone should work on this". Notability essentially means that recognition from either institutions (e.g. you're the dean of a college or a general in the army) or media (you've been on TV or in the papers multiple times). Peer reviewed papers are not enough. If it was, every grad student would have a page and wikipedia policy is to avoid that so that wikipedia doesn't get too enormous.

Of course there's a downside to that. Take, for example, the history of FIRE. That is something that is rather rich and of interest to many many people (at least in the FIRE community). However, no/few journalists have ever looked into it and it's not an academic subfield even if it could be ... and so it is not "notable". Even Financial Independence is apparently not considered very notable (yet).

[thedollar]

Can you please confirm that you are working on this, or still intend to?

The article seems fitting to me contentwise. The wording is a bit off sometimes:

"Fisker fortsatte med at leve på mængden af SU-budget [...]" -> "Fisker fortsatte med at leve på et budget tilsvarende SU-stipendiet [...]"

"Da Fiskers indtægt steg, overskuddet blev oprindeligt sat på en opsparingskonto, men senere investeret i aktier, da han opdagede, at det gav større udbytte." -> Da Fiskers indtægt steg, blev overskuddet oprindeligt sat på en opsparingskonto. Senere blev det klart for Fisker, at pengene kunne bruges til at investere på aktiemarkedet og på den måde generere et større afkast."

"Ved hjælp af konventionel privatøkonomi rådgivning for at spare 10-15% af indkomst[10], skal man arbejde mellem 5-10 år for at spare nok til at finansiere et års pensionering, forsømme investeringsafkast og effekten af rentes rente." -> "Under konventionel rådgivning inden for privatøkonomi anbefales det typisk, at personer sparer 5-10% af deres indkomst op. Ved denne opsparingsrate tager det uden at tage højde for investeringsafkast og rentes rente mellem fem og 10 år at opspare nok til at dække et års udgifter."

"Derimod en mere ekstrem person hvem spare 75% af indkomst, sparer nok til at finansiere 3 års pensionering for hvert arbejdet år. Det gør det muligt for den ekstreme sparer at gå på pension meget tidligere end den traditionelle sparer[11]." -> "Sparer en person der i mod op mod 75% af sin indkomst op, vil personen kunne spare nok op dække tre års udgifter for hvert arbejdsår. Den unormalt høje opsparingsrate muliggør en unormalt tidlig pensionering sammenlignet med en konventionel opsparingsrate."


Fish, are you a native speaker of Danish? Seems way too good to be translated through Google and a little off in some places revealing that the author is not native.

[Fish]

@thedollar - Thanks for the corrections, they have been implemented. Any further improvements would be welcome.

I have zero proficiency in Danish, but am getting by with some minimal experience with Swedish that was acquired in a past life. Part of the reason the article is awkward, is that it originates from a discarded draft JLF wiki article that I had written in English several months ago. (It would have been better to start from scratch in Danish, but that’s too computationally expensive for me.) As a matter of expedience I simply machine-translated it to Danish when I wanted to float this trial balloon. There was a fair amount of post-processing because computer translation is terrible(*), but I left it in a rough state because Danes like yourself could write it better and a lot more efficiently.

(*)Machine translation works a lot better with short sentences expressing simple concepts, which is more typical of spoken language. @cimorene12 found a trick to translate the subtitles of the hamsterhjulet documentary to English, and though there were a few instances where the translation was completely wrong, I otherwise found it hard to make meaningful improvements on a word-by-word basis.

Anyway, after the feedback from @Eureka, I realize that it is more productive for me to focus on writing in English and leave the development and maintenance of the JLF article to the Danes. The FIRE movement article is my current focus.

[Fish]

For about 2 weeks, there has been an English language JLF page (translated from Danish) and it has not yet been challenged: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Lund_Fisker

It could still be much better, but it’s a start. Eventually I may be motivated to continue working on it and also improve the FIRE movement’s history to be more accurate and give proper credit to some of its pioneers (Terhorst, Kaderlis, Greaney, Sholar, Golio and many others I’m starting to read about).

Also, here is an article about JLF that’s more in depth than the usual media mentions. It’s written in Hebrew but Google translate works well. https://www.epochtimes.co.il/et/133633

[Bankai]

Nice entry. Is it possible to update no. of ERE books sold as it's now twice the amount mentioned?

[Fish]

Wikipedia generally requires that information come from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This extra layer of filtering means that having the latest information on ERE book sales requires that someone else (e.g. a newspaper with a reputation for fact-checking, blogs are unacceptable) finds it worthwhile to report on it first. There are many neat things about ERE philosophy that could be written, but can’t be put on wiki because of this. Writing a wiki article is sometimes challenging because of this constraint.