Wikipedia talk:Prices

Historical legacy

I am unaware of any legacy discussions about how primary data comes to be accepted routinely in Wikipedia.

At some point in the past, some kinds of primary data came to be acceptable, and other kinds not.

After this early judgment, the rules became more difficult to change. I do not know how "pricing" data could come to be judged if a change were proposed. One problem with prices is that they are geographically relative, whereas other kinds of primary data - like city populations - are absolute if Wiki reports them. I am not sure. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: I suspect that there is also a healthy amount of cultural elitism in those editorial decisions. Populations are regarded as encyclopedic information whereas monetary values are discounted as lower interests. But there is no splendid isolation between money and the rest of the world. - Another reason might be that monetary values change frequently, and that most encyclopedias were printed after the time where currencies were stable over decades. Capital in the Twenty-First Century mentions that a lot of the 18th century novels fall into a time where you could describe a character as earning this-many pounds, and that a reader at the end of the century could still make a valid estimate of the character's financial and social standing. Today, novels avoid these numeric values, because they become meaningless within a decade. - On Wikipedia we can update frequently (see Internet rankings, Stock exchange numbers, net-worth) and we have to take an active role in reducing bias and cultural-elitism. --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Quantitative denial

I did some exploring of the what-links-here of WP:NOPRICES and WP:PRICES. Most discussions seem to take place about rather non-essential goods (consumer electronics, cars) and the only infobox that seems to include prices is Template:Infobox information appliance. Meanwhile a search for "affordable" returns 38240 results. I therefore conclude that prices have already entered Wikipedia in qualitative form, and suggest that this page be turned into a Wikipedia guideline that regulates the qualitative and quantitative mentionings of prices.

Furthermore prices of essential products (a visit to a doctor, a liter of drinkable water, a year of tutition for a school) have a profound impact on the way we process information. For example I can read a page about a private jet, and from my experience I know that I can't afford one. I will therefore either never look up the average or lowest price of private-jet-flying or will have to invest much time into research (maybe not available in a language I know). But if the number were more present (i.e. on Wikipedia), I could reach a ready conclusion and make much better decisions about my private-jet-flying plans.

I think that we might have a similar situation in less educated communities. People might be under the impression that certain goods and services are unafordable to them, and the barrier for research is infinitly high in those cases. So I would like to propose further, that by introducing more numeric values we end the +12000$-per-year bias of Wikipedia. Words like "affordable" are probably written by people that have at least more than 12000$ per year and are truly meaningless to those that have less, or substantially less. The statement "affordable to" only has 411 hits on Wikipedia, and it therefore seems that most of the qualtiative statements that are made are not qualified in a way that would be required in order to be neutral and unbiased for readers, regardless of their financial situation. A numeric value is much more neutral in this regard, but would need to be updated frequently for unstable currencies. --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC: why no prices at all?

Hello, it is as a consequence of a derailed discussion on a talk page this one, that I commence this one here. In a nutshell (I hope):

• WP:NOPRICES or WP:PRICES is clearly neither definitive nor compulsory, in omitting price information from articles
• the present case arises because, in an Australian car article (Mitsubishi Magna), for some 1.5 years, list prices have been included without any opposition by regular editors
• opposition has been (improperly?) raised of late by a regular editor (OSX) only in retaliation for a separate discussion not going his way (which involved both me and him)
• in 2014, a discussion went against the inclusion of prices, with reasons including: (i) a lack of reference; (ii) price flactuations over time; (iii) the potential for car dealers to spam; (iv) the potential misuse of the article as a sales catalogue (note: the originating RfC has also been compromised by an offensive participant to the 2014 discussion, Mr.choppers, claiming that it was all done and dusted 2 years ago)
• to address, or in answer to, the above valid points: (i) full reliable external references have been found and included, from Australian car magazines; (ii) the prices included, for each series of the car over a period of 10 years, have strictly been only those listed at the time of launch of each car thus eliminating the issue of price flactuations; (iii) the car has out of production for over 10 years; (iv) by being only prices at launch, it ensures that "special" or "discounted" prices are not included... and a car is not an insignificant household good, which renders its price a key factor for consumers
• the launch prices have been included in such a manner that they do not render the article illegible (prices are included in brackets, against each model variant, where these are listed)
• other car articles (and I am aware this is not a basis for inclusion) also contain prices, without reason or context, let alone full references unlike the above case
• in the above case, prices were a determinative factor of the car's success (in terms of competition and winning Car of the Year awards) and failure against other Australian-made cars
• in the manner in which prices have been included, it is possible (for those who may choose to do so), to carry out trend analysis of new car prices in Australia, which, in the case of this car, spans a period of 20 years (such analysis may seem trivial and I do not profess the following being a determinative crucial point, however, come 2017, no more Australian cars will be manufactured, so prices have the potential of being an important historical fact in future relative to imports)
  • AN ALTERNATIVE: could the fully referenced prices perhaps instead exist in a table, which lists all series, models and variants of this car, if it is a case of readibility?

All in all, is opposition to the inclusion of prices in the above case, proper? Does the non-descriptive and non-compulsory WP:PRICES really give basis to delete this carefully searched and referenced information? As mentioned, I am forcedly resorting to starting this discussion here, because of the derailed RfC on the relevant Talk Page (and other retaliatory actions against me, including being subject of a sockpuppet investigation, which I have no qualms highlighting, unlike the opposing editor's practice of oppressing and/or contorting facts—as I have complained about in the sockpuppet report—and deleting warnings from his Talk Page).
Above all, I raise this discussion here with a view to encourage/seek more more definitive and/or prescriptive guidance on this WP... it isn't helpful that it is so inconclusive, causing the above type of arguments to arise.
I am not requesting or suggesting that this Policy be varied to allow prices for all consumer goods, but a car is typically a major purchase for most people, with price being a key factor in consumer choice. I argue for price inclusion, only if fully referenced and as it applied at a specific point in time (the most practical, if not logical, being the time of launch of the car). CtrlXctrlV (talk) 12:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)