Actually, I HAVE read several books and articles written by these people (Paul Krugman, Lloyd Shapely and Elinor Ostrom are among the more prolific).
YOU, however, have not.
As for the rest - as said, I'm really not interested in whatever fringe economists' opinions you find via google.
Really? Because you just posted a list of those very same economists, and now you're not interested in what they have to say?
Of course, you didn't even bother looking for such opinions - you just took the simplified definition of the concept as it's found in a dictionary and assumed that's how the concept is used in economics.
We were discussing the basic fundamental definition of socialism, and the key to that definition is "government ownership
of the means of production." How that concept is used in economics is both far more complicated and thoroughly irrelevant, since the deeper discussion -- dealing with the subtler implications of socialism and its effects on the market, on production, on political power balances and social forces, etc etc -- do not affect that central premise that socialism is government ownership of the means of production.
Now you just went ahead and cited a whole list of nobel Laureates in economics, presumably on the assumption that at least one of them wrote something that supports your claim that mere CONTROL of the economy in the absence of real ownership is enough to define "socialism." All you have to do is find me one article or one textbook written by any of these people that actually supports that contention. Are you prepared to do that?