On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Jay Litwyn <brewhaha(a)edmc.net> 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