Talk:Risk/Archives/2013

There is no expert

This article is tagged as "needing an expert" but I believe there is no such animal. The subject is simply too broad, I have and understanding of financial risk (as well as a bit of chemistry and IT), but you'd be in deep trouble if you thought I could advise you on the risks from terrorism or food hygiene.

I agree that the article needs input from experts. As a contrary view to the above comment however, I believe there are many experts on risk. Everyone has something to add in this respect but there are a lot of people around the world who can reasonably claim to be an 'expert'. Definition of expert: "a person who has a comprehensive and authoritative knowledge of or skill in a particular area".

Then the article needs a competent writer. The introductory paragraph is terrible, for example. 146.115.145.237 (talk) 07:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

If experience with a subject is an important criteria in defining expertise than we're all experts on risk. Life is constant risk. Driving, purchasing, interacting with others; all of these involve a degree of risk. It's really a question of recognition. Do we recognize the risk, yes most of the time we do, but not always. Regarding the Economic Risk section, I'm curious about the statement "from a societal standpoint, losses are much more lucrative than gains." Clarification here would be appreciated. Is it referring to the fact that one man's loss is another's gain and that government and business often benefit from the suffering of others? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curiouscarl44 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Basic Question

This is too long article!! It is confused. Why we need to use such concept as "risk" in so many applications/domains?? Maybe, could be better to introduce separate articles for ex. : risk(in economy), risk (in engineering), .. and so on. "Observer-amg" 9 June 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.15.49.40 (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Framing

Although it is not relevant for the explanation, per se, I felt that it was necessary to correct the misconception that speeding is a leading cause of road deaths / accidents. 84.9.67.97 01:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

and I've put it back as inattention makes no sense in the context of the article. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Touche ;) - drink driving makes more sense 84.9.67.97 01:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but I've made the link to avoid the redirect and it goes to Driving under the influence. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that framing was touched upon, but I feel that the section was a bit unclear. At the beginning it addresses how people make risk based decisions, but the information afterwards seems to be a bit unorganized. It talks about regret, but does little to show evidence as to how this affects decision making. It then goes into framing, but I think the inclusion of language should be included, more specifically, the way in which information is expressed can influence one's perception of risk as well as scientific studies on this idea. Shannonmari (talk) 03:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)shannonmari

Policy risks and considering risk in policy-making

It's a bit odd to explicitly state "ethical issues arise when considering humans as a source of risk." I can't follow the need to state this obvious fact about every aspect of policy-making. It seems like an implicit (anarchic) criticism of the paradigm that laws can mitigate dangerous behavior. So I tagged it for anyone else who can think of a way to balance it.Patent.drafter (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Practice areas: why is this there at all?

If Risk is endemic to any endeavour, then why categorize it into these sections? There are many more potentials in everyday life where risk is a concern. Spontaneous human combustion, is just ONE example :-) --71.10.146.139 (talk) 02:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)