Re: [WikiEN-l] A definite version of WP:CRYSTAL
I've done a little bit of everything in wikipedia; fact checks and sources,
categorization, organization, matters of style (often necessary for fact
checks), and linking. I wouldn't do anything for text like this, because it
speaks authoritatively about something that can not be known until it comes.
If any of it turns out to be false, then it would interfere with credibility
of wikipedia. If it turned out to be true, then I would wonder if
wikipedia's endorsement of a pundit had something to do with it;
self-fulfilling prophecy. Consider a move to http://future.wikia.com Your
information is inherently commercial. You might think that you will get more
interest in such stuff from wikipedia, just because it's the grand-daddy,
and I really don't think people should even be looking for forecasting on
wikipedia. Information like this dates and dates quickly in the scheme of
things. Sometimes, it dates harshly in light of what actually happens. I
don't think that will be as likely to happen on futures-wiki. It is more
likely that such material would persist and get linked, there, whether it is
wrong or right. It should be easier for you to find like-minded or even
contrasting pictures of the future or people with ideas for making it false.
Just in case someone thinks I am always a curmudgeon.
___
http://ecn.ab.ca/~brewhaha/";>BrewJay's Babble Bin
- Original Message -
From: "Fred Bauder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "English Wikipedia"
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 6:05 AM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A definite version of WP:CRYSTAL
>I have been editing regarding the global economic crisis. The outstanding
> projection is that (unless something is effective is done) the current
> crisis will result in a crisis similar to the Great Depression. That this
> warning has been repeatedly made is not subject to dispute, but the
> question arises as to the validity of the underlying projection. A more
> minor matter is the more or less reliable projection that the rate of
> unemployment will rise to 8% (or so) during 2009 in the United States.
> There are a number of sources for this. We report generally accepted
> economic projections. That is part of what economists do. To a certain
> extent the validity for our purposes of publishing depends on appropriate
> attribution.
>
> Projections of global warming present the same problem.
>
> The specific problem for Wikipedia is not publishing of generally
> accepted projections but of original research which often has little or
> no rational basis.
>
> Fred
>
>> == Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. ==
>>
>> {{speculation}} and {{prophecy}} are not welcome on
>> wikipedia. No articles about anticipated events are verifiable, because
>> anticipated events are not reliable. They are not reliable, because they
>> are
>> not testable. Exceptional claims require exceptional references.
>> [[:category:Reliable Modern Prophets and Agencies of Prediction]] is very
>> small. Forward-looking documents and statements should be restricted to
>> events that are almost certain to happen in the obvious sense,
>> considering
>> how many times it has happened in the past and the resources devoted to
>> making it happen again.
>>
>> [http://future.wikia.com/ Wiki-future], [[WP:IRC]], [[WP:TALK]],
>> [[WP:E-MAIL]] and [[USENET]] are fine venues for writing about the
>> future,
>> and it does not belong here until it is a fact, so look out for sentences
>> that contain words like "would", "could", "may", and "might", because
>> they
>> should tell you what makes them likely, almost now.
>>
>> $continue with exceptions...no, because as WP:CRYSTAL is now, there hav
>> already been a lot of exceptions and that's probably why I ended up with
>> so
>> much static when I tried to take the [[weasel words]] out of it. I'm sure
>> there are people who took and take this policy by the name of the section
>> heading, like I did. I don't know a more sensible and pivotal rule than
>> this
>> to divide wikipedia from the rest of the media.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
>
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A definite version of WP:CRYSTAL
G'day Andrew, > 2008/11/13 Jay Litwyn : > > Since I believe in global warming and I see a contest between it > and > > economics, I see a very hot dispute that really should be > off-loaded. There > > are so many other places for volatile information to go. In other > words, if > > someone did [[global warming]], I think they should expect to end > up on > > another site, unless the article is restricted to history. > I think this is going to end in tears - where do we draw the line? > Do > we just not talk about global warming; do we talk about it as > something that is believed to have happened up to and including last > week; do we talk about it and imply it may continue to happen; do we > talk about it in general terms in the future but give no numbers? > I'm not sure this approach is helpful; it tries to deal with a small > set of specific (percieved) problems by applying a draconian general > rule. I mean, take cosmology. We'd be a shoddy encyclopedia if we > didn't talk about the [[heat death of the universe]], a very > well-known concept... but it's entirely hypothetical, it exists as a > paper theory with some substantiating numbers, and it's several > billion years ahead. I seem to recall WP:CRYSTAL's original purpose was to stop people writing about predicted future events years before they occurred (e.g. [[Playstation 9]]). Actually, most examples I can think of come from computer games, film, or music. Call WP:CRYSTAL just one of many tools to defend against overwhelming geekgasm. The point was to prevent Wikipedians from making predictions (Playstation 9 will come out in 2017, and it will be AWESOME!!!; Star Wars XVII will come out, and it will SUCK DONKEY BALLS!!!), not to stop us from reporting on others' predictions. So it's entirely appropriate to have an article on [[Heat death of the universe]], [[Global warming]], and even [[2012 London Olympics]]. Indeed, to ask the question --- is it appropriate to talk about global warming, heat death of the universe, whatever --- is to be elevating a badly-written policy above common sense. Again. -- Mark Gallagher 0439 704 975 http://formonelane.net/ "Even potatoes have their bad days, Igor." --- Count Duckula ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A definite version of WP:CRYSTAL
I consider synthesis in mathematics to be almost inevitable. In Physics, it is less so, because you hav to estimate error and you are more reliant on experimental results. It is also harder in Physics to be sure that you are being reasonably complete; that there is no cold fusion. There is still value in explaining what feeds into an equation. So, yes, it is hard to place this one outside of wikipedia. I think the occasional exception holds, and it holds better with a basis and explanation. Unless I miss my guess, there are prerequisites to really understanding this one. - Original Message - From: "Andrew Gray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "English Wikipedia" Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 6:27 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A definite version of WP:CRYSTAL > 2008/11/13 Jay Litwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> Since I believe in global warming and I see a contest between it and >> economics, I see a very hot dispute that really should be off-loaded. >> There >> are so many other places for volatile information to go. In other words, >> if >> someone did [[global warming]], I think they should expect to end up on >> another site, unless the article is restricted to history. > > I think this is going to end in tears - where do we draw the line? Do > we just not talk about global warming; do we talk about it as > something that is believed to have happened up to and including last > week; do we talk about it and imply it may continue to happen; do we > talk about it in general terms in the future but give no numbers? > > I'm not sure this approach is helpful; it tries to deal with a small > set of specific (percieved) problems by applying a draconian general > rule. I mean, take cosmology. We'd be a shoddy encyclopedia if we > didn't talk about the [[heat death of the universe]], a very > well-known concept... but it's entirely hypothetical, it exists as a > paper theory with some substantiating numbers, and it's several > billion years ahead. > > -- > - Andrew Gray > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A definite version of WP:CRYSTAL
- Original Message - From: "FT2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "English Wikipedia" Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 9:33 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A definite version of WP:CRYSTAL > Wikipedia reports what is known, verifiable, and stated by significant > reliable sources, at this time. > > > > In matters such as the economy, and global warming, some of the > significant > views held NOW, are views about the future. For example, "Barrack Obama > will > be the 44th president", A day before the election I was reading this as nearly five coin tosses, according to polls. That qualified it extensively, because neither party was about to leave those states up to chance. " or "Based on current research the great plains will > become desert by 2050 unless action is taken", You are better off stating history in the form of how much of that land was not desert fifty years ago and changes in the rate of creepage. or whatever. Even verifiable > and relevant facts about the future may be fine, such as "If he wins > another 3 fights he will have the longest record of any boxer". Stuff like that is why I had trouble pruning the article on United States Senate, 2010. In 2010, when people are interested in the article from a historic POV, stuff like that would become a record. We are not robots. That is what WP:IAR is pretty much about. In sports and politics, we hav money riding on the future. So, it is natural that we find it harder to resist. I want to give readers a clue. If their host changes, then maybe they will understand that they are delving into topics that are almost purely human. Encylopedias are about understanding things other than ourselves, too. It is very hard to predict anything but yourself. If those are > relevant and significant in a topic, then yes, we may report them. What > CRYSTAL is saying is, much more, that we don't go off speculatively > wondering on our own, about future possibilities, without very good reason > and some kind of backing... (unless these are actually mainstream > significant matters worth reporting, in the field concerned.) But I agree, > it's hard to pin down :) Now you know why I like mathematics. If I do not follow it, then I only hav myself to blame. If I can follow it, then I do not need authorities to make it stronger or more understandable. > > > FT2 > On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 4:21 PM, Oskar Sigvardsson < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Jay Litwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Even jenerally accepted projections, among economists, are open to >> dispute >> > on magnitude and applicability. Economics projections, like weather >> > projections, get more erroneous as future becomes more distant. >> >> This is exactly! You write that! You write about the dissent, you >> write about how there's different views by different people. You write >> that the future, as of yet, is uncertain, but you should at least put >> in what people are saying! >> >> Wikipedia shouldn't have a "This is what we think will happen" section >> on the article about the financial crisis. That would be ludicrous. >> But to completely avoid any mention of opinions of top economists >> about the scale of the problem simply makes for a bad article. This >> information is relevant, it is neutral, and it is informative. You can >> write about it in a neutral and factual way, and we have an obligation >> to inform the readers about what is happening. >> >> The essence of WP:CRYSTAL is (or at least should be) that *we* >> shouldn't speculate on the future. But writing about other people that >> do, in a neutral, relevant and factual way (with caveats that clearly >> state that the actual future is uncertain) absolutely has a place in >> wikipedia. It gives readers a deeper understanding of what's going on, >> and it gives them information about what the big-wigs are thinking. >> >> --Oskar >> >> ___ >> WikiEN-l mailing list >> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >> > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A definite version of WP:CRYSTAL
The problem is reliability of what is inherently opinion. I see no problem with writing opinions about facts outside of articles. This is also what the documents about weasel words are about. Opinions about facts are qualified. I want wikipedia restricted to what is not open to dispute. If pundits argue, then wikipedia should be immune to having to block users because they had an argument amid the edit summaries about which pundit will be right. The future is controversial. It is controversial, because predicting the future affects the future. Facts are not controversial. There is enough controversy in the meaning of facts. Human language is like a cracked kettle upon which we beat out tunes for bears to dance to, while all the time we are meaning to move the stars to pity. --Gustave Flaubert - Original Message - From: "Oskar Sigvardsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "English Wikipedia" Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 9:21 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A definite version of WP:CRYSTAL > On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Jay Litwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Even jenerally accepted projections, among economists, are open to >> dispute >> on magnitude and applicability. Economics projections, like weather >> projections, get more erroneous as future becomes more distant. > > This is exactly! You write that! You write about the dissent, you > write about how there's different views by different people. You write > that the future, as of yet, is uncertain, but you should at least put > in what people are saying! > > Wikipedia shouldn't have a "This is what we think will happen" section > on the article about the financial crisis. That would be ludicrous. > But to completely avoid any mention of opinions of top economists > about the scale of the problem simply makes for a bad article. This > information is relevant, it is neutral, and it is informative. You can > write about it in a neutral and factual way, and we have an obligation > to inform the readers about what is happening. > > The essence of WP:CRYSTAL is (or at least should be) that *we* > shouldn't speculate on the future. But writing about other people that > do, in a neutral, relevant and factual way (with caveats that clearly > state that the actual future is uncertain) absolutely has a place in > wikipedia. It gives readers a deeper understanding of what's going on, > and it gives them information about what the big-wigs are thinking. > > --Oskar > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A definite version of WP:CRYSTAL
Wikipedia reports what is known, verifiable, and stated by significant reliable sources, at this time. In matters such as the economy, and global warming, some of the significant views held NOW, are views about the future. For example, "Barrack Obama will be the 44th president", or "Based on current research the great plains will become desert by 2050 unless action is taken", or whatever. Even verifiable and relevant facts about the future may be fine, such as "If he wins another 3 fights he will have the longest record of any boxer". If those are relevant and significant in a topic, then yes, we may report them. What CRYSTAL is saying is, much more, that we don't go off speculatively wondering on our own, about future possibilities, without very good reason and some kind of backing... (unless these are actually mainstream significant matters worth reporting, in the field concerned.) But I agree, it's hard to pin down :) FT2 On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 4:21 PM, Oskar Sigvardsson < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Jay Litwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Even jenerally accepted projections, among economists, are open to > dispute > > on magnitude and applicability. Economics projections, like weather > > projections, get more erroneous as future becomes more distant. > > This is exactly! You write that! You write about the dissent, you > write about how there's different views by different people. You write > that the future, as of yet, is uncertain, but you should at least put > in what people are saying! > > Wikipedia shouldn't have a "This is what we think will happen" section > on the article about the financial crisis. That would be ludicrous. > But to completely avoid any mention of opinions of top economists > about the scale of the problem simply makes for a bad article. This > information is relevant, it is neutral, and it is informative. You can > write about it in a neutral and factual way, and we have an obligation > to inform the readers about what is happening. > > The essence of WP:CRYSTAL is (or at least should be) that *we* > shouldn't speculate on the future. But writing about other people that > do, in a neutral, relevant and factual way (with caveats that clearly > state that the actual future is uncertain) absolutely has a place in > wikipedia. It gives readers a deeper understanding of what's going on, > and it gives them information about what the big-wigs are thinking. > > --Oskar > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A definite version of WP:CRYSTAL
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Jay Litwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Even jenerally accepted projections, among economists, are open to dispute > on magnitude and applicability. Economics projections, like weather > projections, get more erroneous as future becomes more distant. This is exactly! You write that! You write about the dissent, you write about how there's different views by different people. You write that the future, as of yet, is uncertain, but you should at least put in what people are saying! Wikipedia shouldn't have a "This is what we think will happen" section on the article about the financial crisis. That would be ludicrous. But to completely avoid any mention of opinions of top economists about the scale of the problem simply makes for a bad article. This information is relevant, it is neutral, and it is informative. You can write about it in a neutral and factual way, and we have an obligation to inform the readers about what is happening. The essence of WP:CRYSTAL is (or at least should be) that *we* shouldn't speculate on the future. But writing about other people that do, in a neutral, relevant and factual way (with caveats that clearly state that the actual future is uncertain) absolutely has a place in wikipedia. It gives readers a deeper understanding of what's going on, and it gives them information about what the big-wigs are thinking. --Oskar ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A definite version of WP:CRYSTAL
- Original Message - From: "Carcharoth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "English Wikipedia" Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 6:46 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A definite version of WP:CRYSTAL > On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Andrew Gray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> 2008/11/13 Jay Litwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >> > Since I believe in global warming and I see a contest between it and >> > economics, I see a very hot dispute that really should be off-loaded. >> There >> > are so many other places for volatile information to go. In other >> > words, >> if >> > someone did [[global warming]], I think they should expect to end up on >> > another site, unless the article is restricted to history. >> >> I think this is going to end in tears - where do we draw the line? Do >> we just not talk about global warming; do we talk about it as >> something that is believed to have happened up to and including last >> week; do we talk about it and imply it may continue to happen; do we >> talk about it in general terms in the future but give no numbers? You can say lots about the future. And I do not understand why synthesis from anyone has to be here, because there is so much you can say about the past without synthesis about what might happen in the future from anyone. You can talk about the mini ice age. You can talk about polar ice samples. You can put what has already happened to average temperatures on a graph. You can tell what happens in a glass vessel when it is filled with carbon dioxide or water or normal atmosphere and exposed to sunlight. You can explain the meaning of microwave samples made from satellites. >> I'm not sure this approach is helpful; it tries to deal with a small >> set of specific (percieved) problems by applying a draconian general >> rule. I mean, take cosmology. We'd be a shoddy encyclopedia if we >> didn't talk about the [[heat death of the universe]], a very >> well-known concept... but it's entirely hypothetical, it exists as a >> paper theory with some substantiating numbers, and it's several >> billion years ahead. Okay...you hav a point there. That is what the three laws of thermodynamics mean, and it has not been rigorously and unequivocally proven that they are immutable, except perhaps in the exhaustive sense, say in Perpetual Motion Machine. Ginsbergès restatement of the three laws of thermodynamics (my keyboard is flaky): 1. You canèt win. 2. You canèt break even. 3. You canèt quit. > Talking about the future is fine, as long as it is grounded in reliable > sources in the present. I think the original intent of WP:CRYSTAL was to > avoid original research and to avoid articles about future events becoming > too disconnected from the present and becoming "in-universe" (to borrow a > phrase from the debates about articles on fictional topics). In other > words, > having an article about a future scenario, or an alternate history, or an > alternate reality, or a fictional topic, should always be securely > grounded > in what people have said in the past and are saying now. Maybe I didnèt emphasize the other places for topics about the future enough. People will get it in unequivocal terms enough in the papers, while, if the policy is worded definitely, then our tone is not likely to become inflamatory. We write primers, graph trends of history and write numbers measured. Extrapolation is an exercise for the reader. Some people WANT global warming. So, you could do a fork into future.wikia.com Do you want global warming...YES (link to environmental consequences) NO (link to economic consequences). Actually, there are both for both choices, and fiction is not a strong point of my writing. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A definite version of WP:CRYSTAL
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Andrew Gray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2008/11/13 Jay Litwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Since I believe in global warming and I see a contest between it and > > economics, I see a very hot dispute that really should be off-loaded. > There > > are so many other places for volatile information to go. In other words, > if > > someone did [[global warming]], I think they should expect to end up on > > another site, unless the article is restricted to history. > > I think this is going to end in tears - where do we draw the line? Do > we just not talk about global warming; do we talk about it as > something that is believed to have happened up to and including last > week; do we talk about it and imply it may continue to happen; do we > talk about it in general terms in the future but give no numbers? > > I'm not sure this approach is helpful; it tries to deal with a small > set of specific (percieved) problems by applying a draconian general > rule. I mean, take cosmology. We'd be a shoddy encyclopedia if we > didn't talk about the [[heat death of the universe]], a very > well-known concept... but it's entirely hypothetical, it exists as a > paper theory with some substantiating numbers, and it's several > billion years ahead. Talking about the future is fine, as long as it is grounded in reliable sources in the present. I think the original intent of WP:CRYSTAL was to avoid original research and to avoid articles about future events becoming too disconnected from the present and becoming "in-universe" (to borrow a phrase from the debates about articles on fictional topics). In other words, having an article about a future scenario, or an alternate history, or an alternate reality, or a fictional topic, should always be securely grounded in what people have said in the past and are saying now. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A definite version of WP:CRYSTAL
2008/11/13 Jay Litwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Since I believe in global warming and I see a contest between it and > economics, I see a very hot dispute that really should be off-loaded. There > are so many other places for volatile information to go. In other words, if > someone did [[global warming]], I think they should expect to end up on > another site, unless the article is restricted to history. I think this is going to end in tears - where do we draw the line? Do we just not talk about global warming; do we talk about it as something that is believed to have happened up to and including last week; do we talk about it and imply it may continue to happen; do we talk about it in general terms in the future but give no numbers? I'm not sure this approach is helpful; it tries to deal with a small set of specific (percieved) problems by applying a draconian general rule. I mean, take cosmology. We'd be a shoddy encyclopedia if we didn't talk about the [[heat death of the universe]], a very well-known concept... but it's entirely hypothetical, it exists as a paper theory with some substantiating numbers, and it's several billion years ahead. -- - Andrew Gray [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A definite version of WP:CRYSTAL
Okay, so it is a fact that expert people are saying things that they cannot know. I am all over global warming projections, myself, and I do not think they are encyclopedic. They are the subject of endless debate over what the rate of increase in error is as you go into the future. The material that goes into those projections is much more important than what comes out of them. Weather history, economic history -- those are fine subjects for an encyclopedia. They must be condensed and made interesting with links and analysis. Found a trend? Sure. Display it. Extrapolating it should be an excercise left for the reader. Direction of wind in a high pressure zone north of the equator? Sure. Today's projected high in Timbuktu. Far too trivial. You would need megabytes of space for every day and our sources would be...um...lifted. We would be echoes. - Original Message - From: "Oskar Sigvardsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "English Wikipedia" Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 5:30 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A definite version of WP:CRYSTAL > On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 4:01 PM, Fred Bauder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> So how should we treat this from the Fianancial Times: >> >> Merrill chief sees severe global slowdown >> >> By Greg Farrell in New York >> >> Published: November 11 2008 14:42 | Last updated: November 11 2008 20:06 >> >> The global economy is entering a slowdown of epic proportions comparable >> with the period after the 1929 crash, John Thain, chairman and chief >> executive of Merrill Lynch, warned on Tuesday. >> >> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/834ebf5e-aff9-11dd-a795-779fd18c.html >> >> What is true is not necessarily the underlying projection but the fact >> that presumably expert people are saying these things. >> >> Fred > > Exactly. I see no reason for wikipedia not to say "The total scale of > this crisis is as of yet uncertain, but several economists are > projecting [whatever]", with references. Saying this isn't trying to > predict the outcome, which wikipedia shouldn't be doing, it's just > simply reporting what people are saying about the crisis. It provides > neutral and relevant information. > > --Oskar > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A definite version of WP:CRYSTAL
What do you want to call this data point? Maybe I can help you choose
between news.wikia.com and future.wikia.com. If you write it, then what will
you link it from? whatlinkshere is pretty important for traffic.
- Original Message -
From: "Fred Bauder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "English Wikipedia"
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 8:01 AM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A definite version of WP:CRYSTAL
So how should we treat this from the Fianancial Times:
Merrill chief sees severe global slowdown
By Greg Farrell in New York
Published: November 11 2008 14:42 | Last updated: November 11 2008 20:06
The global economy is entering a slowdown of epic proportions comparable
with the period after the 1929 crash, John Thain, chairman and chief
executive of Merrill Lynch, warned on Tuesday.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/834ebf5e-aff9-11dd-a795-779fd18c.html
What is true is not necessarily the underlying projection but the fact
that presumably expert people are saying these things.
Fred
> I have been editing regarding the global economic crisis. The outstanding
> projection is that (unless something is effective is done) the current
> crisis will result in a crisis similar to the Great Depression. That this
> warning has been repeatedly made is not subject to dispute, but the
> question arises as to the validity of the underlying projection. A more
> minor matter is the more or less reliable projection that the rate of
> unemployment will rise to 8% (or so) during 2009 in the United States.
> There are a number of sources for this. We report generally accepted
> economic projections. That is part of what economists do. To a certain
> extent the validity for our purposes of publishing depends on appropriate
> attribution.
>
> Projections of global warming present the same problem.
>
> The specific problem for Wikipedia is not publishing of generally
> accepted projections but of original research which often has little or
> no rational basis.
>
> Fred
>
>> == Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. ==
>>
>> {{speculation}} and {{prophecy}} are not welcome on
>> wikipedia. No articles about anticipated events are verifiable, because
>> anticipated events are not reliable. They are not reliable, because
>> they
>> are
>> not testable. Exceptional claims require exceptional references.
>> [[:category:Reliable Modern Prophets and Agencies of Prediction]] is
>> very
>> small. Forward-looking documents and statements should be restricted to
>> events that are almost certain to happen in the obvious sense,
>> considering
>> how many times it has happened in the past and the resources devoted to
>> making it happen again.
>>
>> [http://future.wikia.com/ Wiki-future], [[WP:IRC]], [[WP:TALK]],
>> [[WP:E-MAIL]] and [[USENET]] are fine venues for writing about the
>> future,
>> and it does not belong here until it is a fact, so look out for
>> sentences
>> that contain words like "would", "could", "may", and "might", because
>> they
>> should tell you what makes them likely, almost now.
>>
>> $continue with exceptions...no, because as WP:CRYSTAL is now, there hav
>> already been a lot of exceptions and that's probably why I ended up
>> with
>> so
>> much static when I tried to take the [[weasel words]] out of it. I'm
>> sure
>> there are people who took and take this policy by the name of the
>> section
>> heading, like I did. I don't know a more sensible and pivotal rule than
>> this
>> to divide wikipedia from the rest of the media.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
>
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A definite version of WP:CRYSTAL
Even jenerally accepted projections, among economists, are open to dispute
on magnitude and applicability. Economics projections, like weather
projections, get more erroneous as future becomes more distant. Graphic
weather simulations are fiction after about five days, mostly because of
information that either wasn't measured or doesn't fit in a machine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CRYSTAL explicitly opens a door for
discussion, which really isn't supposed to be on the encyclopedia. I realize
that putting a template in or even being bold and deleting text or
nominating a whole article for deletion are disputes. And perhaps you see
that if policy is tightly worded, then projections are less likely to be
created in the first place, on the encyclopedia. The horrible thing about
economic simulations is that they're used to buy and sell things, so they
have a problem in the department of self reference, too. In the good old
days, if you bought shares in a company, it would be because you knew how to
improve their yield or you saw some good decisions go into that company.
Since I believe in global warming and I see a contest between it and
economics, I see a very hot dispute that really should be off-loaded. There
are so many other places for volatile information to go. In other words, if
someone did [[global warming]], I think they should expect to end up on
another site, unless the article is restricted to history.
- Original Message -
From: "Fred Bauder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "English Wikipedia"
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 6:05 AM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A definite version of WP:CRYSTAL
>I have been editing regarding the global economic crisis. The outstanding
> projection is that (unless something is effective is done) the current
> crisis will result in a crisis similar to the Great Depression. That this
> warning has been repeatedly made is not subject to dispute, but the
> question arises as to the validity of the underlying projection. A more
> minor matter is the more or less reliable projection that the rate of
> unemployment will rise to 8% (or so) during 2009 in the United States.
> There are a number of sources for this. We report generally accepted
> economic projections. That is part of what economists do. To a certain
> extent the validity for our purposes of publishing depends on appropriate
> attribution.
>
> Projections of global warming present the same problem.
>
> The specific problem for Wikipedia is not publishing of generally
> accepted projections but of original research which often has little or
> no rational basis.
>
> Fred
>> == Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. ==
>>
>> {{speculation}} and {{prophecy}} are not welcome on
>> wikipedia. No articles about anticipated events are verifiable, because
>> anticipated events are not reliable. They are not reliable, because they
>> are
>> not testable. Exceptional claims require exceptional references.
>> [[:category:Reliable Modern Prophets and Agencies of Prediction]] is very
>> small. Forward-looking documents and statements should be restricted to
>> events that are almost certain to happen in the obvious sense,
>> considering
>> how many times it has happened in the past and the resources devoted to
>> making it happen again.
>>
>> [http://future.wikia.com/ Wiki-future], [[WP:IRC]], [[WP:TALK]],
>> [[WP:E-MAIL]] and [[USENET]] are fine venues for writing about the
>> future,
>> and it does not belong here until it is a fact, so look out for sentences
>> that contain words like "would", "could", "may", and "might", because
>> they
>> should tell you what makes them likely, almost now.
>>
>> $continue with exceptions...no, because as WP:CRYSTAL is now, there hav
>> already been a lot of exceptions and that's probably why I ended up with
>> so
>> much static when I tried to take the [[weasel words]] out of it. I'm sure
>> there are people who took and take this policy by the name of the section
>> heading, like I did. I don't know a more sensible and pivotal rule than
>> this
>> to divide wikipedia from the rest of the media.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
>
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A definite version of WP:CRYSTAL
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 4:01 PM, Fred Bauder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So how should we treat this from the Fianancial Times: > > Merrill chief sees severe global slowdown > > By Greg Farrell in New York > > Published: November 11 2008 14:42 | Last updated: November 11 2008 20:06 > > The global economy is entering a slowdown of epic proportions comparable > with the period after the 1929 crash, John Thain, chairman and chief > executive of Merrill Lynch, warned on Tuesday. > > http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/834ebf5e-aff9-11dd-a795-779fd18c.html > > What is true is not necessarily the underlying projection but the fact > that presumably expert people are saying these things. > > Fred Exactly. I see no reason for wikipedia not to say "The total scale of this crisis is as of yet uncertain, but several economists are projecting [whatever]", with references. Saying this isn't trying to predict the outcome, which wikipedia shouldn't be doing, it's just simply reporting what people are saying about the crisis. It provides neutral and relevant information. --Oskar ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A definite version of WP:CRYSTAL
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 3:01 PM, Fred Bauder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So how should we treat this from the Fianancial Times: > > Merrill chief sees severe global slowdown > > By Greg Farrell in New York > > Published: November 11 2008 14:42 | Last updated: November 11 2008 20:06 > > The global economy is entering a slowdown of epic proportions comparable > with the period after the 1929 crash, John Thain, chairman and chief > executive of Merrill Lynch, warned on Tuesday. > > http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/834ebf5e-aff9-11dd-a795-779fd18c.html > > What is true is not necessarily the underlying projection but the fact > that presumably expert people are saying these things. Wasn't the problem that the experts got it wrong? Sure, we can't say who is going to be wrong, but that's part of the whole package of presenting different points of view. We don't need to try and get it right, but instead we need to document, in relative proportion, what is being said by who (though this changes from day to day). The trouble is that the "consensus" among economic experts is volatile. In some ways, you have to wait for history to render a verdict (come back in 50 years or so). Looking at what was actually said at the time about the 1929 crash, and then comparing this to what was said later on, is interesting. For example, I read somewhere that the 1930s Great Depression was caused not by the 1929 crash, but by longer-term underlying factors that had been around before the 1929 crash, and that the crash was a symptom rather than a cause. Yes, here, we are, I read it on Wikipedia... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_Crash_of_1929#Impact_and_academic_debate "...the now standard interpretation of what made the "great contraction" so severe. It was not the downturn in the business cycle, trade protectionism or the 1929 stock market crash that plunged the country into deep depression. It was the collapse of the banking system during three waves of panics over the 1930-33 period." Collapse of the banking system? That sounds familiar. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A definite version of WP:CRYSTAL
So how should we treat this from the Fianancial Times:
Merrill chief sees severe global slowdown
By Greg Farrell in New York
Published: November 11 2008 14:42 | Last updated: November 11 2008 20:06
The global economy is entering a slowdown of epic proportions comparable
with the period after the 1929 crash, John Thain, chairman and chief
executive of Merrill Lynch, warned on Tuesday.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/834ebf5e-aff9-11dd-a795-779fd18c.html
What is true is not necessarily the underlying projection but the fact
that presumably expert people are saying these things.
Fred
> I have been editing regarding the global economic crisis. The outstanding
> projection is that (unless something is effective is done) the current
> crisis will result in a crisis similar to the Great Depression. That this
> warning has been repeatedly made is not subject to dispute, but the
> question arises as to the validity of the underlying projection. A more
> minor matter is the more or less reliable projection that the rate of
> unemployment will rise to 8% (or so) during 2009 in the United States.
> There are a number of sources for this. We report generally accepted
> economic projections. That is part of what economists do. To a certain
> extent the validity for our purposes of publishing depends on appropriate
> attribution.
>
> Projections of global warming present the same problem.
>
> The specific problem for Wikipedia is not publishing of generally
> accepted projections but of original research which often has little or
> no rational basis.
>
> Fred
>
>> == Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. ==
>>
>> {{speculation}} and {{prophecy}} are not welcome on
>> wikipedia. No articles about anticipated events are verifiable, because
>> anticipated events are not reliable. They are not reliable, because
>> they
>> are
>> not testable. Exceptional claims require exceptional references.
>> [[:category:Reliable Modern Prophets and Agencies of Prediction]] is
>> very
>> small. Forward-looking documents and statements should be restricted to
>> events that are almost certain to happen in the obvious sense,
>> considering
>> how many times it has happened in the past and the resources devoted to
>> making it happen again.
>>
>> [http://future.wikia.com/ Wiki-future], [[WP:IRC]], [[WP:TALK]],
>> [[WP:E-MAIL]] and [[USENET]] are fine venues for writing about the
>> future,
>> and it does not belong here until it is a fact, so look out for
>> sentences
>> that contain words like "would", "could", "may", and "might", because
>> they
>> should tell you what makes them likely, almost now.
>>
>> $continue with exceptions...no, because as WP:CRYSTAL is now, there hav
>> already been a lot of exceptions and that's probably why I ended up
>> with
>> so
>> much static when I tried to take the [[weasel words]] out of it. I'm
>> sure
>> there are people who took and take this policy by the name of the
>> section
>> heading, like I did. I don't know a more sensible and pivotal rule than
>> this
>> to divide wikipedia from the rest of the media.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
>
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A definite version of WP:CRYSTAL
I have been editing regarding the global economic crisis. The outstanding
projection is that (unless something is effective is done) the current
crisis will result in a crisis similar to the Great Depression. That this
warning has been repeatedly made is not subject to dispute, but the
question arises as to the validity of the underlying projection. A more
minor matter is the more or less reliable projection that the rate of
unemployment will rise to 8% (or so) during 2009 in the United States.
There are a number of sources for this. We report generally accepted
economic projections. That is part of what economists do. To a certain
extent the validity for our purposes of publishing depends on appropriate
attribution.
Projections of global warming present the same problem.
The specific problem for Wikipedia is not publishing of generally
accepted projections but of original research which often has little or
no rational basis.
Fred
> == Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. ==
>
> {{speculation}} and {{prophecy}} are not welcome on
> wikipedia. No articles about anticipated events are verifiable, because
> anticipated events are not reliable. They are not reliable, because they
> are
> not testable. Exceptional claims require exceptional references.
> [[:category:Reliable Modern Prophets and Agencies of Prediction]] is very
> small. Forward-looking documents and statements should be restricted to
> events that are almost certain to happen in the obvious sense,
> considering
> how many times it has happened in the past and the resources devoted to
> making it happen again.
>
> [http://future.wikia.com/ Wiki-future], [[WP:IRC]], [[WP:TALK]],
> [[WP:E-MAIL]] and [[USENET]] are fine venues for writing about the
> future,
> and it does not belong here until it is a fact, so look out for sentences
> that contain words like "would", "could", "may", and "might", because
> they
> should tell you what makes them likely, almost now.
>
> $continue with exceptions...no, because as WP:CRYSTAL is now, there hav
> already been a lot of exceptions and that's probably why I ended up with
> so
> much static when I tried to take the [[weasel words]] out of it. I'm sure
> there are people who took and take this policy by the name of the section
> heading, like I did. I don't know a more sensible and pivotal rule than
> this
> to divide wikipedia from the rest of the media.
>
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] A definite version of WP:CRYSTAL
== Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. ==
{{speculation}} and {{prophecy}} are not welcome on
wikipedia. No articles about anticipated events are verifiable, because
anticipated events are not reliable. They are not reliable, because they are
not testable. Exceptional claims require exceptional references.
[[:category:Reliable Modern Prophets and Agencies of Prediction]] is very
small. Forward-looking documents and statements should be restricted to
events that are almost certain to happen in the obvious sense, considering
how many times it has happened in the past and the resources devoted to
making it happen again.
[http://future.wikia.com/ Wiki-future], [[WP:IRC]], [[WP:TALK]],
[[WP:E-MAIL]] and [[USENET]] are fine venues for writing about the future,
and it does not belong here until it is a fact, so look out for sentences
that contain words like "would", "could", "may", and "might", because they
should tell you what makes them likely, almost now.
$continue with exceptions...no, because as WP:CRYSTAL is now, there hav
already been a lot of exceptions and that's probably why I ended up with so
much static when I tried to take the [[weasel words]] out of it. I'm sure
there are people who took and take this policy by the name of the section
heading, like I did. I don't know a more sensible and pivotal rule than this
to divide wikipedia from the rest of the media.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
