Talk:Economic data

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Statistics Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Workforall.net external link[edit]

Regarding the removal of this link:

[http: //workforall.net/Statistics-Portal.html The Brussels Free Institute for Economic Research ]

It was commented as "rm workforall.net linkspam by User talk:81.242.58.154" but I do not see any discussion about the quality of the link on the user's discussion pages. It looks like the user spams all possible WP articles with the link but I do not see how it proves its low quality. Can you please enlight me? (I do not defend its quality because I do not know the site; but I would like to see a reason/proof.) :-) --Ioannes Pragensis 16:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ioannes. The workforall.net external link is part of a mass spamming with 112 linkspams so far. This spammer also copied and pasted large quantities of duplicate text into multiple articles which damages Wikipedia's content integrity. I've tried to clean it up as best I could but I could use your help. Please see User_talk:Requestion/Archive_1#workforall.net_linkspam for details. This link is going to be blacklisted by the official meta black list or by a bot so I wouldn't bother adding the link back. (Requestion 17:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

OK, thank you, let us seek another link. --Ioannes Pragensis 18:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the diff [1] for this article. Note that this exact text has been pasted into 12 other articles. It was fairly recent so this propagation isn't bad but some other workforall.net paste spams have been in many Wikipedia articles since Summer 2006. (Requestion 19:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, I have it seen in Regression analysis first and removed it immediately, because it is not appropriate there. But I think that something like this is useful here in the article about Economic data - I sometimes look for data about inflation rates, unemployment etc., and such external links can be very helpful if well selected.--Ioannes Pragensis 20:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any idea why the workforall.net spammer is doing this? They seem like a legitimate organization. It's just crazy. (Requestion 21:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I have no idea. Perhaps they do not know how Wikipedia works and think that it is a free advertising service... --Ioannes Pragensis 21:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Workforall is a leading think-tank in Brussels. Their contributions provide information on a great number of socio-economic subjects, some of which have indeed political sensitive implications conflicting with mainstream economic thought. The information they provide is high quality, well researched and well documented, and their posts were a positive contribution to Wikipedia's quality and pluralism.

One or two of their posts would indeed better suite under a different subject. However the indiscriminate mass destruction for this sole reason of all the valuable information they provided has destroyed lots of highly valuable subjects.

Such hasty random destruction without thorough investigation is causing much collateral damage and looks more like vandalism than it helps to fight spam. Such hit-or-miss random destruction in a couple of minutes has the ultimate effect of lowering the overall quality of Wikipedia.

The last thing the Wikipedia community needs is censureship. Wikipedia does not need censors from big media to validate the quality of information. The visitors of Wikipedia are competent enough to evaluate the quality of information provided. Once big media censors take over it will be the end of the unique Wikipedia concept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.201.26.155 (talk • contribs)

In Wikipedia you must keep Wikipedia rules. The only thing you achieve with this behavior is that the Workforall site will be globally blocked, i.e. nobody will be able to add here a link to it in the future, even in a legitimate context. People are very sensitive to spam here, and you can easily imagine why.--Ioannes Pragensis 12:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me what concrete rule was not respected here. Valuable information was added here and a couple of related subjects to provide a link to the most comprehensive data source on the internet. By vandalising the post you are witholding the Wikipedia community easy access to worldwide data sources. Please tell me what contributed more to the Wikipedia' quality: providing the link or destroying it ? Please stop your the mass destruction of valuable information under the pretext of spam. Let Wikipedia readers decide for themselves decide what is valuable information and what is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.201.26.155 (talk • contribs)

Start by reading WP:LINKS, WP:COI and WP:SPAM. If you wish to add an external link, suggest it on the talk page of the article and wait if somebody else adds it. - The problem is that by now I am not able to add the link even here where I believe it could be perhaps legitimate. The spam-watchers would probably remove it immediately and without thinking because they see it as a part of your "valuable information" campaign. I fear that Wikipedia users have already decided. Cheers,--Ioannes Pragensis 12:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The external link to the dataportal was reverted following the continued debate on on: User_talk:Requestion/Archive_1#Please_stop_indiscriminate_mass_destruction —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.64.93.128 (talk • contribs)

Proposal to merge Economic statistics into Economic data in a month[edit]

The proposal is at Talk:Economic statistics#Proposal to merge Economic statistics with Economic data in a month. Please comment there (if desired) to keep the discussion in one place. The name of this article would remain unchanged. Thank you. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Quoreshi's comment on this article[edit]

Dr. Quoreshi has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

Original
For time-series data, reported measurements can be hourly (e.g. for stock markets), daily, monthly, quarterly, or annually. Estimates such as averages are often subjected to seasonal adjustment to remove weekly or seasonal-periodicity elements, for example, holiday-period sales and seasonal unemployment.[5]
Comments to change For time-series data, reported measurements can be tic by tic (e.g. for stock markets), hourly daily, monthly, quarterly, or annually.
Original Many methods can be used to analyse the data. These include, e.g., time-series analysis using multiple regression, Box-Jenkins analysis, seasonality analysis. Analysis may be univariate (modeling one series) or multivariate (from several series). econometricians, economic statisticians, and financial analysts formulate models, whether for past relationships or for economic forecasting.[8] These models include both partial equilibrium microeconomics aimed at examining particular parts of an economy or economies, or they may cover a whole economic system, as in general equilibrium theory or and in macroeconomics. Economists use these models to understand past events and to forecast future events, e.g., demand, prices and employment. Methods have also been developed for analyzing or correcting results from use of incomplete data and errors in variables.[9]

Comments to change
Econometricians, economic statisticians, and financial analysts formulate models for past relationships as well as economic forecasting.[8]

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Quoreshi has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

Reference : Quoreshi, Shahiduzzaman, 2005. "Bivariate Time Series Modelling of Financial Count Data," Umea Economic Studies 655, Umea University, Department of Economics.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Lippi's comment on this article[edit]

Dr. Lippi has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

Extremely generic and confused (I am not an English mother tongue but even the language seems very sloppy). For example: "With the complexity of modern economies and the lags inherent in macroeconomic policy instruments, a country must have the capacity to promptly identify any adverse trends in its economy and to apply the appropriate corrective measure. This cannot be done without economic data that is complete, accurate and timely." Even saying such platitudes the author is sloppy: "adverse trends cannot be identified "promptly". Trends are long term movements of economic magnitudes.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Lippi has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

Reference : Forni, Mario & Hallin, Marc & Lippi, Marco & Reichlin, Lucrezia, 2002. "The Generalized Dynamic Factor Model: One-Sided Estimation and Forecasting," CEPR Discussion Papers 3432, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 11:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Economic data. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080504165035/http://www.riksbank.com/templates/Page.aspx?id=27394 to http://www.riksbank.com/templates/Page.aspx?id=27394

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]