Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hélène Rey[edit]

I've added some initial discussion of the contributions of Prof. Hélène Rey here: [1]. There's a lot more that can be added, if anyone's familiar with her work and contributions.

What are the appropriate number of threads on this Wikiproject talk page?[edit]

Regarding [2], what do other editors think the appropriate number of threads to leave displayed on this talk page should be? My understanding is that it is not uncommon for wikiprojects to have dozens of simultaneous projects. EllenCT (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

In my experience, 20 minimum threads seems to be rather high when configured to an age of 90 days. WikiProject Finance & WikiProject Globalization use 6 & 5 minimum threads respectively. However, they are configured to expire threads after only 30 days. I think WikiProject Economics would benefit from a minimum thread count of 5 to 10, and an expiry of 30 to 45 days. My general view is that minimum threads and thread expiry should generally have an inverse relationship: less-active projects warrant threads sticking around longer because it takes longer for them to get attention, while more-active projects may not need threads to stick around as long since they may resolve more quickly, and may instead have a desire to see more minimum threads since there will likely be more things to discuss. Ultimately it boils down to what a project is willing to handle. On talk pages with an aggressive auto-archiving configuration, editors can always include a <!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 12:00, 01 January 2020 (UTC) --> exception at the beginning of a talk page thread to exempt it from archiving (and remove it when the participants deem the thread ready for normal archiving). John Shandy`talk 03:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

GDP forecasting[edit]

I would like other editors' comments on the graphs at [3]. EllenCT (talk) 18:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Looking back, a reliability index might be useful given that several forecasts were posted, possibly many biased by politics. (talk) 12:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

RePEc integration[edit]

Recently I (successfully) requested the addition of RePEc Short-ID (for authors) and RePEc Series handle (for journals) as authority control to Wikidata. This means that articles on Wikipedia for economists and for economics journals can be associated with their RePEc identifiers and link back to IDEAS and EconPapers respectively. Ideally, the RePEc Series handle could be added to the `Indexing' section of the Journal infobox. RePEc is an excellent resource and I'm sure there are a ton of other ways it could be integrated with Wikipedia. I'd be interested to hear other people's ideas.--ChrisSampson87 (talk) 09:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@ChrisSampson87: does the citoid service (e.g. [4]) automatically fill that out? @Salix alba: do you know who to ask? EllenCT (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Hyperinflation article 99% wrong.[edit]

{{collapse top|text=Blocked editors are The Hyperinflation article is 99% based on Cagan´s obsolete definition of hyperinflation being 50% inflation per month.

No government in the world follows that definition. It is completely historic and obsolete.

The group of Wikipedia editors who controls this article know that.

Unfortunately they will not allow that to be changed.

They will never state the encyclopedic position regarding hyperinflation in the world today in this article.

Namely, they will never allow it to be stated in the article that no government in the world uses Cagan´s defintion today.

All governments follow the IASB´s 1989 definition of hyperinflation as being equal to or approaching 100% cumulative inflation over three years, or 26% annual inflation for three years in a row, about 2% inflation per month for three years in a row.

This problem of a group of editors controlling a Wikipedia page and representing a false situation is apparently quite common on Wikipedia which explains why Wikipedia cannot be used as a reliable source in academic research as clearly stated in a Harvard University publication easily found on the internet.

Would the editors on this Economics project be interested in correcting the above situation? (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I dont think it is a problem untill it reaches 200% wrong. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
The editors on this project should bear in mind that the IP is a blocked editor who is editing in contravention of his block. —C.Fred (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

When I post the above statement that the Hyperinflation article is 99% wrong on the Hyperinflation Talk page one of the editors of the group of editors I mention above, repeatedly reverts this post. He does not like true encyclopedic facts to appear in the hyperinflation article, not even on the talk page. He is not a very good example of what Wikipedia claims to be. He does not revert this post. I wonder why. (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Because, procedurally, any editor may revert any edit you make. You lost your privileges to edit when you were blocked indefinitely. You cannot participate on the article's talk page. The only reason I haven't reverted you here is in the hopes that you'll read and understand why your edits have been (and if necessary, will continue to be) reverted on Talk:Hyperinflation. —C.Fred (talk) 12:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • What is important about any high inflation and what can be learned by "milking" the statistics of actual past and current happenings as reliably documented? (talk) 03:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

To what extent does gross private domestic investment determine the rate of growth?[edit]

The article on gross private domestic investment says it "is an important component of GDP because it provides an indicator of the future productive capacity of the economy." To what extent does GPDI actually determine the rate of growth?

Please answer at Talk:Economic growth#To what extent does gross private domestic investment determine the rate of growth? thanks. EllenCT (talk)

Talk:Economic stagnation[edit]

There are two issues in need of comments: 1) should the US content be split off and 2) is the term secular stagnation the same as economic stagnation, and if so should the article be renamed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

1) Instead of the whole article being only about the U.S., there should instead be a U.S. section. 2) No, "secular stagnation" is one theory of economic stagnation which is always expounded after every recession and has never been correct. However, this time may be different. The references supporting statements about secular stagnation currently in the article have obvious strong conflict of interest issues rendering them extremely unreliable.
The article is not currently based on reliable sources, and is so misleading as to be worthy of deletion unless someone has time to base it on reliable reviews such as [5] ("In all the theories reviewed above, technological progress drives structural change, but it is frequently the demand side that is crucial for determining which industries grow faster than others and which shrink, and it therefore shapes the direction of structural change.") and [6] for international perspectives, and [7] for balance on the reliability of the secular stagnation hypothesis. EllenCT (talk) 13:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

add a link the "see also" section of Leading Economic Indicators?[edit]

How about putting a link to the Baltic Dry Index in the 'see also' section of the Leading Economic Indicators article??? ---- jj 5/11/2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

No objection from me. EllenCT (talk) 12:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Recovery participation rate[edit]

How should [8] be characterized? How should [9]? Please see Talk:Economic stagnation#Recovery participation rate. EllenCT (talk) 05:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

A new type of economic organization? (and article improvement help requested)[edit]

I've been observing for several months now the area of decentralized autonomous organizations (DAO) in general, enabled by smart contract capability of second-generation blockchain databases. These are at an intersection of two areas I've been interested in for years: digital technology and economics.

Today may be some sort of tipping point, with several major media outlets now covering the emergence of a particular DAO (called The DAO) for the first time (Fortune, Wall Street Journal, etc. articles published yesterday/today; all are cited in that article). The entity is notable for a few reasons.

  1. it has raised over US$100 million in a crowdfunding effort in the past 2+ weeks.
  2. it does seem to me, and to some others now as a " something entirely new. It’s something between a traditional corporation, a VC fund, and a Kickstarter — only entirely decentralized, democratic, and existing only in code. Because of this, the DAO is a paradigm shift in the very idea of economic organization. It offers complete transparency, total shareholder control, unprecedented flexibility, and autonomous governance." (quotation in one of the media pieces today, now cited in the article on "The DAO")

In other words, DAOs in general, and The DAO in particular, seem to be important to economics in general and the field of Industrial organization in particular.

I'm hoping some other econ-interested editors will take a look at the space in Wikipedia and help improve articles. Two specific initial requests:

  1. The DAO (organization) needs some additional eyes, and copyediting by serious editors other than me.
  2. The article on Decentralized autonomous organization is currently a mess. Lots of it was deleted in recent weeks (I deleted some of the unsourced material myself; but the article then got rather massively cut by others until it is now makes no sense at all), and there is a, shall we say, "active" dialogue going on on the Talk page by some questioning whether the term "decentralized autonomous organization" is even a valid term. If others would pop over and provide more opinions, or improvement to the article, that would be most helpful.

In short, it seems to me that we have the early/incipient emergence of a new/different type of organization, but now (this month) that is in practice and execution, not just in theory which, for DAOs, goes back several years in the scholarly literature. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

A way to approach systemic supply side bias on Wikipedia[edit]

In regard to the ongoing argument at Talk:Economic growth#Evisceration of secondary literature in favor of primary sources, et seq., Please see: Ostry, Jonathan D.; Loungani, Prakash; Furceri, Davide (June 2016). "Neoliberalism: Oversold?" (PDF). Finance & Development: 38-41.  EllenCT (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Auto-assessment of article classes[edit]

Following a recent discussion at WP:VPR, there is consensus for an opt-in bot task that automatically assesses the class of articles based on classes listed for other project templates on the same page. In other words, if WikiProject A has evaluated an article to be C-class and WikiProject B hasn't evaluated the article at all, such a bot task would automatically evaluate the article as C-class for WikiProject B.

If you think auto-assessment might benefit this project, consider discussing it with other members here. For more information or to request an auto-assessment run, please visit User:BU RoBOT/autoassess. This is a one-time message to alert projects with over 1,000 unassessed articles to this possibility. ~ RobTalk 22:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

That would be fantastic. So requested. Thank you! EllenCT (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Group of Seven (G7) [edit]


An article that you have been involved in editing—Group of Seven (G7) —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Lost sales[edit]

I've created a new article about a popular term used in the debates on Internet piracy. It may warrant a see also to some related terms, or expansion, or a hatnote. Feel free to expand and correct. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Proliferation of spammy BLPs[edit]

I recently created a stub on Philip H. Dybvig of Diamond-Dybvig ‎fame, and decided to browse the economist stubs category. I went through about a quarter of the stubs, and found that about half of those are not close to meeting any of the criteria at WP:ACADEMIC, and are essentially vanity articles, or spammy ads for people trying to sell books or consulting services. If anyone has time, please have a look at the ones I've sent to WP:AfD, [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. Also, I suggest better policing of the economist BLPs category. LK (talk) 04:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

New sources on college subsidy[edit]

(A) "the additional earnings from two or four years of college (relative to only high school) were $2.4 trillion"[19]

(B) "the state receives a $4.5 net return for every dollar it invests to get students through college."[20]

Can everyone see how A implies B? (Hint: you can use the two figures to determine what the Treasury thinks working life expectancy and interest rates are going to be.) EllenCT (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking for feedback on a tool on Visual Editor to add open license text from other sources[edit]

Hi all

I'm designing a tool for Visual Editor to make it easy for people to add open license text from other sources, there are a huge number of open license sources compatible with Wikipedia including around 9000 journals. I can see a very large opportunity to easily create a high volume of good quality articles quickly. I have done a small project with open license text from UNESCO as a proof of concept, any thoughts, feedback or endorsements (on the Meta page) would be greatly appreciated.


--John Cummings (talk) 14:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Money creation article[edit]

Eyes needed at money creation article, if anyone wants to weigh in. LK (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

For the people here, this is the edit under discussion. My objection is that the edits reflect a fringe economic view that essentially says "the textbooks are wrong, the textbooks are wrong". The textbooks are simplified, and details can be elaborated upon, but it's 'fringey' to say that the common view, or the textbook view is wrong. I'm fine with including some of what was added, as long as it's written neutrally. For example, no one argues that today, the interest rate target is the tool that central banks use to control credit creation, and that they do not pay much attention to the quantity of money created. This could be made more explicit, but the article should not imply that the majority of textbooks are wrong because of this. I'll be happy if anyone else wants to engage. LK (talk) 05:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I find your argument rather weak. The term 'textbook' is only mention once ("described in some economics textbooks), yet you seem to make a general case out of it. You don't seem to object on the content itself (only on the vindicative style), so why don't you take onboard my edit, and improve it, instead of rejecting them entirely? That would be so much more constructive. Stanjourdan (talk) 08:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Done. I don't think you'll be satisfied with the result. But this conversation has been carried out before. I'm guessing from your edits that you're coming from a a particular post-keynesian viewpoint, that views textbook accounts of the fractional reserve system as wrong. Such views (such as chartalism) are heterodox. LK (talk) 08:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. At least i'm less unsatisfied now. I don't have a particular ideology regarding this topic, but it seems that authoritative institutions (IMF, Bank of England) have now made it clear that although banks do create money, the fractional reserve theory is not an entirely accurate way to describe money creation by banks. In particular, the view that the central bank first create reserves and then private banks 'multiply' those reserves seem to have been proven wrong several times. Yet the wikipedia article still present this as the commonly accepted truth. I was just trying to bring this piece of controversy, because right now the BoE paper is sourced in a way that gives credit to the fraction reserve theory section, while in fact the BoE is clearly saying that some of this theory is wrong. Any advice on how to integrate this point better into the article would be welcome. Stanjourdan (talk) 12:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Kazaro's talk page concern[edit]

Hi, I didn't join your WikiProject here yet, but I have a question: Is it possible or rather are you allowing any user talk pages on inputting your stub projects on their own talk page? As I linked on this title of the message, I observed that this Wikipedia user is putting the said stub on his/her talk page that is NOT your concern / not related to the topic. Can you please investigate this? Some users are (I don't think it this way, but I feel it is) abusing those stub to use for themselves. Hamham31Heke!KushKush! 00:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add a "RECENTICITY" table for starters in economics.[edit]

  • There is a lot of information available about economics which includes also much that no longer is relevant and/or otherwise is of no current importance. Given the superior knowledge of the participants on this project, probably it would help beginners in economics to find here a list showing which articles, where, to start with that are likely to be for free, reliable and up-to-date. (talk) 02:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)