[WikiEN-l] A definite version of WP:CRYSTAL

[Jay Litwyn]

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" <fredbaud at fairpoint.net>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
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. ==
>>
>> <nowiki>{{speculation}} and {{prophecy}}</nowiki> 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 at lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l