Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics/Reliable sources and weight

Neutral presentation

Have gone through the original page construction and edited it for neutral presentation and clarity. skip sievert (talk) 17:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion by banned editor collapsed

L.K. making an edit summary like the one you did here.. quote-> (Reverted to revision 317284486 by Lawrencekhoo; rv unencylopedic changes made by editor opposed to goals of wikiproject. (TW)) end quote..., is way over the top uncivil and you probably are advised to not interject your opinion of good faith editors that may disagree with you pov. I hope that is clear. I have carefully documented this type of behavior also, and it is noted that Civility is the most highly valued characteristic on Wikipedia, far more than writing skill or subject matter knowledge. Experts, as you identify yourself as, must remain unfailingly civil toward other editors. I have documented now multiple editing attacks by yourself. Also, if you have have created this article or any article, but if you do not want your writing to be edited, read or redistributed by other people, then do not submit it here. Your editing cooperation is suggested, not just a massive revert to your original copy. This looks like a problem. The article page is not something you own, an essay or personal writing, it belongs to the Wikipedia community. No longer refer to this editor as editor opposed to goals of the wikiproject end quote. Is that clear? Thanks. skip sievert (talk) 02:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC) I have reverted to the earlier version because the changes explicitly contradict policy. LK (talk) 02:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC) No they don't. Prove it please. You are giving zero examples. None. What changes and what policy??... are you referring to? I edited the article for a more neutral point of view and to not present such a one sided view (in my opinion), about what sources are good, or weighty. skip sievert (talk) 02:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC) A neutral third part going through your changes will see pretty clearly that they are unencyclopedic and violate policy. Lets bring one in. LK (talk) 03:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC) Discussion first? Or no discussion? Just reverts? That means ownership issues. Lets give others an opinion and a chance to comment. Being uncivil violates policy as I have outlined. Accusing other good faith editors of being opposed to goals of wikiproject seems rather odd. How is that? Is that a good way to interact here? - skip sievert (talk) 03:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC) I note that you have reverted just as many times as I have, ownership issues Skip? For neutral third party observers, I believe Skip holds goals antithetical to the goals of Econ Wikiproject. He rejects all Economics except for the fringe field of thermoeconomics. A few quotes from Skip's rants on the WP:ECON talk page to prove my point. "Economics is pretty much voodoo. Almost occult as to being a belief system." "Helpful? Clarifying what? Economics is not science. This is science scientific method. Economics is and always has been a political invention that is also controlled by special interest groups, especially currently. Many economists get paid for their duties. They depend on people believing them. Lets not enforce belief system guidelines on Wikipedia. Krugman won a prize from a Swiss banking consortium. The Prize nobel had a monetary value. Unless he towed a mainstream Keynes view he would not have won. Keynes is probably the default template of current Capitalism, Socialism, etc. This discussion is trying to formalize special policy for an area that is based on abstract concept, opinion, and belief system criteria." "Regular economics is not yet a science, and suspect it will never be." LK (talk) 15:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC) I don't know where you got that idea. I edit a wide variety of articles on history, economics, culture, etc. Citing discussion out of context is not of much value when editing this subject from a different discussion. Name calling is not going to help things either (ranter or ranting) here. As to opposing the Wiki Economics project?? How is it that you claim I do that?? I believe Skip holds goals antithetical to the goals of Econ Wikiproject. He rejects all Economics except for the fringe field of thermoeconomics. A few quotes from Skip's rants on the WP:ECON talk page to prove my point. end quote L.K. above. That is calling another editor a ranter so an obvious breach of civility. You have done that multiple times now elsewhere. I won't bother to give examples here but have documented this on other pages. Could you please limit that? It is noted that mostly myself organized and rewrote and maintained a workable consensus several months ago on History of economic thought article. The article turned out nice after the rewrite (my opinion), and has been dramatically stable since then. Also with some others I completely reorganized and rewrote large sections of the main Economics article on Wikipedia, the one that gets about 142,000 hits a month. Since then the article has been extremely stable also. So, lets not confuse things or start any more derogatory commentary. Is that clear? It is fine if you started this article but no one owns articles on Wikipedia, and the article is not a format blog or essay place for a single viewpoint that one editor wants to give to the public. I hope that is clear also. If you do not want your writing to be edited, read or redistributed by other people, then do not submit it here. Thanks, and it is noted again that we are NOT enemies, though I wish you would not say things like the above as it does not make for cooperative editing in a good spirit. skip sievert (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC) Anyone who wants to know the truth on that should have a look at the talk page of History of economic thought. What you will see is several editors disagreeing with one very tendentious individual that kept on pushing for the inclusion of a fringe theory into the lead. This is similar to what is going on at Talk:Sustainability right now. The page history speaks of itself. LK (talk) 10:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Any one who want to know the truth?... Huh? What fringe theory ??, are you referring to also above? How is it that you continue with the personal attacks L.K. calling another editor tendentious individual and all? The page history speaks for itself... yes, and side tracking issues into pointless personal remarks would be a suggestion. I do think that a topic ban from editing economics related articles for you may be in order since you show no sign of stopping the kind of personal stirring such as above, and actually are doing more of that now by going to an article like Sustainability and reverting issues for what looks to be just plain some other issues that do not relate to the actual information or the discussion on the talk page. skip sievert (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Note: User:Skipsievert has since been indefinitely blocked based on an ArbCom case.[1]

I've copied over a bit I wrote about weight and chopped out the bit naming a special source in the nutshell. Plus other changes and headings. I feel some of the other stuff could be chopped out as repeating policy and not adding very much of note but will leave as is. Dmcq (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Mainstream, heterodox, fringe, and industry, and politics

Thanks for this proposal – sourcing and weight are key issues in a field as diverse and, at times, contentious as economics.

I’d suggest that the main distinctions to draw are between:

• Mainstream economics
• Heterodox economics
• Fringe theories
• Industry (non-academic) practice

To elaborate:

Mainstream economics

• As used, this is specifically Anglophone mainstream economics, as our references are in English.
• As a school, this is the neoclassical synthesis, mixing neoclassical economics and Keynesian economics, as presented in most textbooks and journals.
• This is easy to reference, and on most topics has consensus, but on others has significant differences of opinion, mostly along neoclassical/Keynesian lines (saltwater and freshwater economics).
• This should be the primary but not only view presented, and when there are disagreements, they should be fronted and discussed but not the focus.

Heterodox economics

• Here I’m thinking of schools like Austrian economics, Marxian economics, and Post-Keynesian economics that are established traditions, are represented in academia, and have referred journals, but are not mainstream; this also includes non-English language schools, which are poorly referenced in English.
• Their views are sometimes close to mainstream, sometimes sharply at odds with it (and often with each other!) – they should be included because part of the discourse, referenced, and informative, but not given undue prominence.
• For example, in discussions of deficit spending, while the focus should be on mainstream notions of cyclical deficit and structural deficit, hard-money views such as Austrians and fiat money views such as Chartalists should be stated initially and prominently simply to set the range of opinion, but should not be elaborated except in relevant sections or separate articles.
• When a heterodox school (or schools) has much to say on a topic, it is better to have a separate page – for example, criticism of fractional-reserve banking, so as not to distract from fractional-reserve banking (this is perhaps an extreme example).

Fringe theory

• Here I’m thinking of theories not associated with any established school of economics, for which references are mostly websites, rather than texts and journals – e.g., “Martians are manipulating frozen orange juice prices!”.
• These are generally rejected and should not be included anywhere, with caveats below.
• It is possible for a fringe theory to become worthy of an article if it gets picked up, but only after it has been picked up by the world at large, not before – and should only be mentioned outside that article when strictly relevant.
• For example, Elliott wave theory was initially fringe, and should have been rejected from a vintage 1938 Wikipedia, but is now established as a theory, though many reject it; it should not be mentioned, or at most briefly, on “Causes of the Great Depression”, for instance.
• Similarly, there is policy on articles on conspiracy theories and the like; established theories, even if rejected, merit articles, but we should be cautious on these – extraordinary claims require durable references, at least.

Industry practice

• I’m thinking of topics like technical analysis which are widely practiced in industry but little-studied and generally dismissed in academia.
• This is notably business, management, finance, accounting, etc.
• Here the correct frame of reference is published works aimed at the industry and public, of which there are often many, and consensus stated to the extent it exists.
• If academia has little to say, what it has to say should be said, but not given undue prominence – just because a topic is not academic does not make it invalid.
• Some industry practice is ill-documented, especially new practice, and more reflected in industry publications and websites, especially initially – I’m thinking of Inverse ETFs, for instance. We should be cautious of these, and try to find better references, but inclusive if it is actual practice.

A key point is to not misrepresent these:

• not misrepresent non-mainstream views as mainstream (either explicitly or by undue prominence),
• nor to excluded established but non-mainstream views (either explicitly or by undue minimizing),
• nor include idiosyncratic views nor exclude unusual but established ones,
• nor to unduly favor theory or practice (even if theory does not reflect practice nor practice theory) – just report the facts and (referenced) opinions.

To summarize:

• Mainstream, in the main
• Heterodox, as relevant and in the right place
• Fringe rejected, unless established and well-referenced
• Industry, as possible

Does this seem a useful taxonomy and guidelines?

I’ve not written this in proposal style, but rather for discussion, and sought to be forceful but balanced – some things should not be included, some things should be, and some things are debatable, and should be debated.

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 13:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I should also add:

• Politics

…as there is overlap between Economics and Politics in Economic Policy, and these sometimes agree, sometimes disagree – e.g., most mainstream economists believe in cyclical deficits (fiscal stimulus), but many (most?) US politicians do not, as evidenced by balanced budget amendments (and political debate).

Some comment on this – say, “In economic policy, economic views and political views should both be discussed, and differences noted, but not dwelt on.” (e.g., it’s ok to cite that Krugman thinks balanced budget amendments makes US state governors 50 Herbert Hoovers, but that should really be in a footnote.)

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 13:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It’s also worth noting that WP should not advocate pluralism in economics, which is a contentious position; just because diverse views exist does not mean that they should be promoted. The line between “discussing” and “promoting” is at times fine (NPOV vs. POV-pushing), but should be maintained.

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 06:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

This is nice effort to understand weight in economic publishing. Nils, you seem to know this subject, I support your sketch of taxonomy on reliable sources. If I was asked to show the best sources for verifiable material on economics, my choices would be:

-The Econometric Society Monographs

-Econometrica

-The Handbook in Economics, by Elsevier

-Any book published by: Princeton, MIT, and Harvard University Press.

You just can't go wrong with these, they are as mainstream as it gets, but definitely verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forich (talk • contribs) 00:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Forich – this is really helpful in giving specific examples!

I’m also thinking of specifically mentioning standard intro (& intermediate) texts, like Mankiw and Krugman (these are admittedly both New Keynesian, but they v. mainstream, can be linked at Google Books, and at least span a political spectrum), and of course Samuelson.

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, we could try to list the standard intro textbooks, sure. I'm not too much of a Krugman fan, his post-Nobel prize era I don't like. I don't know Mankiw because Macro is not my field. Samuelson is very popular, but maybe not the best example. According to their OCW website, MIT uses these textbooks: Pindyck and Rubinfeld (Microeconomics); Blanchard (Macroeconomics); Jonathan Gruber (Public economics); Krugman and Obstfeld (International Economics)--Forich (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as introductory textbooks go, Mankiw's PRINCIPLES OF ECONOMICS is the "most popular and widely used", at least according to Amazon.com.[2] I think it makes a good reference for some of the more basic stuff. LK (talk) 10:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks both – this is v. useful! AFAICT, Mankiw’s is the current most-used, while Samuelson was most-used for a long time, and both have some views which have been criticized (e.g., Samuelson speaks favorably of the Soviet Union in some editions and has been accused of communist sympathies, while Mankiw is criticized as a conservative propagandist and Harvard actually had a separate course run by Stephen A. Marglin). I don’t think it’s particularly necessary to indicate biases/criticisms on particular texts, but just to mention useful ones and caution that ranges of opinion exist.

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 03:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Historical and global perspective

I think it would also be useful to include discussion of the importance of historical and global perspective, as per Wikipedia:Systemic bias and Wikipedia:Recentism.

The two main areas I see this as an issue are:

• Economic history (statements about economic history), and
• Economic terminology / Historical economic theory

Simply:

• qualify historical statements, both by period and region – especially, do not give undue weight to recent US economic history.

For example, the unqualified “recessions are generally followed by swift recoveries and drops in unemployment,” is incorrect. The properly qualified “In the United States in the period 1945–1990, recessions were followed by swift recoveries and drops in unemployment,” corrects this (and suggests the need for more historical and global perspective).

• Ideally we’ll include history (both of phenomena and economic ideas) going back to antiquity, if relevant; in some cases this is easy (debasement), while in others it may not make sense or be possible.
  • If lengthy, history should be a separate article, as usual in summary style.
  • I’ve mentioned debasement as “history of an economic phenomenon”, and I’d suggest paradox of thrift as a good example of “history of an economic idea” – in modern form it’s mostly Keynes, popularized in US by Samuelson, but it has well-recorded 19th & 20th century predecessors, and the sentiment dates to antiquity; these are mentioned as history but not the focus of the article, which is on the concept itself.

• use modern, mainstream terminology and interpretations, and discuss historical and heterodox terminology and interpretations in separate sections, mentioning briefly in introductory and general sections to highlight but not over-emphasize.
  • Do not use anachronistic or non-mainstream terminology except in historical contexts (call it “Say’s law”, not “The Law of Markets”), discussion of non-mainstream theories, or in the absence of a suitable mainstream term – heterodox terms should be preferred to neologisms.

(I’m thinking here of the Marxian term “reserve army of labour”, i.e., that unemployed control inflation by being available for hire; in Post-Keynesian economics, specifically Chartalist job guarantee programs, it’s called less rhetorically a “buffer stock” of labor, but the Marxian term is much more established. Is there a mainstream term for this?).

A separate guideline on terminology is likely in order; similarly, want to avoid pejorative terms (except when standard within a subject – and here still preferring neutral terms if possible).

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 03:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

How to present disagreement

When consensus exists, it should be presented as such; how to present spectra of views and disagreements?

See esp. Wikipedia:Controversial articles; I think we can be more specific in economics.

Two methods that have weaknesses are:

• launching directly into a debate from the start, or having point-by-point back-and-forth; these confuse readers firstly by obscuring any consensus that exists (not giving them a starting point) and secondly by not presenting any particular view clearly, without distractions. Further, these often hide POV-pushing.
• presenting views in isolation, without any relations – this makes the topic hard to follow because, while each view can be understood on its own terms, they exist in relation to each other

The question is how to make views and their relations clear; my inclination is to primarily isolate separate views, and compare/contrast views only after they have been introduced, but point out areas of disagreement – readers should know from the start if disagreements exist, rather than needing to read to the end of an article.

I’d thus propose:

• if disagreement exists within the mainstream, present consensus if possible, and the spectrum of opinion – taking care to distinguish spectrum of opinion within mainstream from spectrum of opinion across economics (present first one, then the other, being clear on which is which).
  • For example, in deficit spending the mainstream spectrum is primarily between “no deficit spending” and “cyclical deficits”, with the latter being more common, and should be presented as such; there are proponents of the gold standard and of structural deficits at the edges of mainstream (and more in heterodox economics), but these are decidedly minority views.
• mention disagreements briefly in general & introductory sections
• elaborate in relevant later sections
• do not have point-by-point refutations, which are both tedious and tend to push a POV – simply present differing views and indicate where they differ – how they relate
• fringe criticisms should not be presented in general sections; if mentioned at all, they should be in a separate section, or “See also”.

For example, if a mainstream view is criticized, one should mention the criticism briefly and non-disruptively in the context of the mainstream view (for example, after the mainstream view has been presented, stating “This view is criticized by Marxian economists as ignoring the tendency of the rate of profit to fall.”), but it such not be elaborated in general sections – general sections are not places for point-by-point debates.

• Conversely, in articles on heterodox or established fringe theories, mainstream criticism should likewise be mentioned as relevant, but only elaborated in a separate section or article – present theories on their own terms.
  • I’m agnostic as to whether heterodox and established fringe theories should begin or end with the mainstream view; clearest is probably to state clearly in the lede that the theory is rejected by the mainstream, but only elaborate at the end (in a “Mainstream view” or “Criticism” section), after the theory has been presented.

This seems the most contentious area; while we cannot and should not eliminate debate, hopefully a structure can make articles readable and balanced!

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 03:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

In a quip one might say:

“In presenting the views on a topic, do not either suggest controversy where there is consensus, nor suggest consensus where there is controversy.”

While we should include in some form all established views, just because a view is contested by a minority does not mean that this criticism should be viewed as a controversy between views held by roughly equal groups – the mainstream spectrum can be stated upfront, and minority view should not distract from it. Admittedly this is a judgment call, but these all are.

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 05:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Types of sources (POV pushing)

As per User talk:Cretog8 – Mises, I think it’s worth including a caution that many potential sources in economic push a POV, and also a list of useful resources (esp. for new editors).

Thus, while a source may be useful and valuable as references for a view, they should not be misrepresented as indicating that a view is in any way a consensus view or even mainstream. For example, the Ludwig von Mises Institute and Marxists Internet Archive are great resources, but they have a strong POV – they are useful as references for Austrian and Marxian economists, but are certainly not mainstream. National Bureau of Economic Research working papers and Social Science Research Network are also useful online resources, though again one should use these with caution.

Think tanks (Brookings, Cato, Heritage, etc.) and popular magazines in general also push some view, which may be more or less mainstream; for example, The American Prospect and The Economist are useful references, and represent mainstream views, but should not be confused with or presented as consensus views.

Conversely, many mainstream views in academic economics or policy may not have as easily-accessible references, especially due to textbooks or journals not being online, or not easily online – thus the number of references that are close to hand shouldn’t be confused with how widely a belief is held. As a rule of thumb, intro econ (& intermediate) texts are a good reference for whether views are held or discussed in academia.

So to summarize, references to cite a view are welcome, but should not be taken as evidence to push a POV or give undue weight in an article – quoting Marx chapter and verse doesn’t make it mainstream.

In a quip: “Use citations to verify, not as a cudgel.“

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 05:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I’d also add that it’s worth reiterating the function of sources, in rough order:

• Verifiability and No Original Research – esp. for Fringe Theories
• Type of theory – Mainstream, Heterodox, Fringe (and Academic/Industry/Politics)
• How widely held / consensus

Thus, including a source for a statement is a first and necessary step (to ensure not Original Research), but is not enough – being sourced does not make a view mainstream or significant, and is not in itself evidence that the view should be emphasized or even included; these are community judgment calls, and are helped by referencing appropriate sources.

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 05:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably also worth linking to List of scholarly journals in economics.

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 05:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Example of How to present disagreement

I propose a little exercise for us: If we were to follow Nils von Barth (NVB) suggestions on how to present disagreement in economics, then what changes would be made to the entry on Causes of the great depression?

Thanks Roberto – this is an excellent exercise.

I’ll recuse myself initially, to see both how people feel this should be handled, and how they interpret the above proposed language.

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 21:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not going to be as easy as I thought. Here we have 9 theories:

• Keynesian
• Monetarist (Mainstream)
• Gold Standard
• Austrian
• Inequality of wealth and income
• Debt inflation deflation
• Structural
• Trade Breakdown
• Population dynamics (Heterodox)--Forich (talk) 15:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I have only dared to check Monetarism as mainstream. I suspect Austrian is heterodox.--Forich (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

*grin* – that’s exactly why it’s a good torture test!

BTW, it’s debt deflation, not debt inflation.

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 22:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Part 1: the Lead

Current version (as of 15:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)) The causes of the Great Depression are still a matter of active debate among economists, and is part of the larger debate about economic crises, although the popular belief is that the Great Depression was caused by the crash of the stock market. The specific economic events that took place during the Great Depression have been studied thoroughly: a deflation in asset and commodity prices, dramatic drops in demand and credit, and disruption of trade, ultimately resulting in widespread unemployment and hence poverty. However, historians lack consensus in describing the causal relationship between various events and the role of government economic policy in causing or ameliorating the Depression.

Current theories may be broadly classified into two main areas. First, there is orthodox classical economics: monetarist, Austrian Economics and neoclassical economic theory, which focus on the macroeconomic effects of money supply, how central banking decisions lead to overinvestment and an economic bubble, or the supply of gold, which backed many currencies before the Great Depression, including production and consumption. A fourth point of view, not widely held, is the effect of population dynamics upon demand.[2]

Second, there are structural theories, most importantly Keynesian, but also including those of institutional economics, that point to underconsumption and overinvestment, malfeasance by bankers and industrialists, or incompetence by government officials. The only consensus viewpoint is that there was a large-scale lack of confidence. Unfortunately, once panic and deflation set in, many people believed they could make more money by keeping clear of the markets as prices got lower and lower and a given amount of money bought ever more goods.

new version -if NVB guideline is used-

Any thing going on here?

This page hasn't seen much activity recently. Anyone still interested in this page? I like what Nils von Barth wrote above. Any objections to adding Nils von Barth's writing here (properly edited) to the main page? LK (talk) 09:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems to have no objections (not many comments, but no controversy).

I’d be happy to have a shot at re-writing in more proposal-style, or you’re welcome to do so yourself. Shall I make a proposed edit on the main page, and then you edit so it fits better (and avoids/closes glaring loopholes)?

After merging, probably worth announcing on Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics#Announcements so any remaining concerns can be aired, but seems to be acceptable.

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 17:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds great – please do go ahead and put together an addition to the page. I'm in the middle of editing a book, so don't have much time now. However, I'll try to support you however I can. LK (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)