Economics Workgroup/Archive 1

none (to start Archive 1)

This is the archived portion of the discussion page[edit]

(the archived portion of the main Economics Workgroup page is below it)

Anyone know if there is or will be a Workgroup devoted to Business & Industry? That is, who (if anyone) is going to head up how specific business entities and industry sectors will be portrayed in Citizendium? I'll check for replies here. --Gregory J. Kohs 22:34, 27 January 2007 (CST)

I'm either asking my question in a very dead space, or there's no interest in answering it at this time. --Gregory J. Kohs 22:54, 14 February 2007 (CST)

Certainly, I agree that such a workgroup is needed. My own area of expertise is too far removed [immigration and public policy] to offer anything useful, but I hope that some editors will appear shortly with an interest. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 16:54, 18 February 2007 (CST)

Well, if one gets assembled, I may be willing to contribute my time and skills to it. Not sure I'd want to "lead" it, but participation is probable. --Gregory J. Kohs 08:45, 26 March 2007 (CDT)

I would love to support it, but I don't even have enough time to devote to the topics that I have already committed to leading, sorry. But for areas near my fields of expertise--agriculture, energy, and bio-energy, I would be happy to assist. --Matthew Roberts 11:20, 11 April 2007 (CDT)

Looks like the proper forum for Business interests is now created at: CZ:Business Workgroup. I'll try to make myself at home over there. --Gregory J. Kohs 15:20, 13 April 2007 (CDT)

Economic heterodox tradition[edit]

To the editor Martin Baldwin-Edwards:

Critique is essential to science, I do not object to critiques or to critics. However critiques should be made "to the article", not on the writer. The expressions "The term "heterodox economic tradition" is not standard, and is therefore being reified by this article." and "The principal moving force, and primary reference point, for this article appears to be a pressure group known as Heterodox Economics Web (...)" have strong moral implications that are unacceptable to me.

Politness is a complex issue, and subject to great cultural differences. Where I live it is not considered "polite" to imply intellectual dishonesty (in the sense of the advocacy of a position known to be false) when reviewing an article, no matter how formal, soft or kind might be the words used to do so. As long as the above expressions are to stay posted, I am out. On all other issues previously discussed we could most likely had reached a agreement.

J. R. Campos 21:05, 2 May 2007 (CDT)

New articles[edit]

I have made a tentative start at writing new articles on Economics, Microeconomics and Macroeconomics.

I have aimed them at the ordinary reader seeking a broad appreciation of what it's about rather than at students of economics looking for help with their essays. I leave the task of meeting students' needs to those of you that are in the teaching profession. I suggest putting that material in a separate article titled (perhaps) " Economic Theory"

Please let me have your comments and criticisms.

Nick Gardner 15:33, 23 September 2007 (CDT)

New core articles[edit]

Martin - I had in mind to do an article on unemployment. Do you think that I should make that a sub-heading of employment? An article on each is feasible, but offhand I should suppose that the employment article would have to be very brief. What do you think? Nick Gardner 04:26, 13 January 2008 (CST)

Better to put unemployment under employment, and we can put a redirect from the term "unemployment". I thought of contribyuting something to the article on employment, but I was not thinking to write about unemployment specifically. My thoughts were more on labour market aspects. I suppose we should also have a redirect from the term labour market. Anyway, go ahead: we can always move things around. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 04:41, 13 January 2008 (CST)

Graphs and maths[edit]

Martin - As I have mentioned, I have aimed my articles at the educated layman rather than the economics student. This has prompted a comment that the usual graphs seem to be missing. At first I had mixed feelings about this. I find graphs helpful myself, but I know from experience that many highly intelligent people, who can rapidly follow complex passages of verbal logic, can follow graphs (or any non-elementary maths) only very slowly, if at all. So, if the reasoning in our articles were to depend solely upon graphs (as is often the case in Wikipedia) we should be excluding a section of readership that includes some influential people - such as those with classical, legal, or even accounting, backgrounds. I am also concerned that exclusively graphical explanations of economic phenomena often confer a misleading impression of neatness and precision (a criticism that has been levelled at some teachers of economics and their textbooks, as you may know).

If we were to try to include both verbal and graphical explanations in our articles, their readability would suffer. But it has occurred to me that we could have it both ways (for some articles, at least) by putting the graphical and mathematical explanations in appendixes. Would it be possible to create new subpages for that purpose, and would that be a good idea?

Nick Gardner 05:09, 13 January 2008 (CST)

Yes, this is exactly right. My initial thought is that the subpage "Tutorial" would be a good place to put undergraduate style diagrams and equations. So far, subpages have been seriously underutilised, so you can be a pioneer:-) --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 10:00, 13 January 2008 (CST)

Nick, I am very pleased that you are taking this approach! Hopefully this will serve as a basic model for the mathematics and sciences workgroups as well. --Robert W King 10:48, 13 January 2008 (CST)

OK but (in my ignorance) I have hit a technical obstacle. I am trying to add a tutorial subpage to the international economics article. I have succeeded in adding a subpage panel above the article, but its talk page does not have a panel for adding subpages (as I have found to be the case for other articles). Can you help? Nick Gardner 11:02, 13 January 2008 (CST)

Do you mean the talk panel of the tutorial page? --Robert W King 11:22, 13 January 2008 (CST)

It seems that "international economics" does not have a Talk page or a metdata page! That is why...Martin Baldwin-Edwards 11:27, 13 January 2008 (CST) Problem now solved, Nick. Also, if it is of interest to you, note that we have Student subpage as well as Tutorial. I don't know what the difference is supposed to be, as we have never defined their uses. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 11:50, 13 January 2008 (CST)

I think student is supposed to be used for... um... student-y kinds of things... --Robert W King 11:54, 13 January 2008 (CST)

YOu mean, parties, drinking sessions, etc? LOL Martin Baldwin-Edwards 16:36, 13 January 2008 (CST)

Sure, why not. --Robert W King 16:37, 13 January 2008 (CST)

"Financial Economics"[edit]

This is a plea to the finance professionals among CZ economics authors to spare some time to take a critical look at the draft article on Financial economics which is now near completion. I am conscious of my lack of professional experience in this field, and while I am reasonably confident of its factual accuracy, I am doubtful whether I have got the balance right. Nick Gardner 10:01, 28 March 2008 (CDT)

This is the archived portion of the main Economics Workgroup page[edit]

A CALL TO ECONOMICS AUTHORS AND EDITORS[edit]

We need much more activity on CZ with social science, and especially economics articles. A new author here, Nick Gardner, has made a heroic start with some core Economics articles. We transferred the text from the old article Economics to a new article History of economic thought which now requires massive editing to put it in shape. There are also some other articles which need attention. I propose listing articles into several categories, to guide us through the workload.

Please add any articles you would like to nominate for these groupings [and feel free to start work on them too!]

Core economics articles which are completely MISSING

Core economics articles which are stubs or low quality

Core economics articles which are good but need development to reach approval standard

Economics articles which seem redundant but whose content may be useful for other articles

Economics subdisciplines

Economics articles which appear to be finished, of very high quality, and may be ready for formal Editor approval

Below, I also paste a message from Nick, about his recent edits on some core economics articles. We hope that we can put together a really good economics coverage on CZ.--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 20:10, 23 September 2007 (CDT)

Possible new articles[edit]

In the course of drafting the "gateway" articles on economics, microeconomics and macroeconomics, I have created links to the following articles, nearly all of which are at present empty. Some of the new articles would, no doubt, link to further articles.

(I have assumed that the list below covers the ground set out in Martin Baldwin-Edwards message above, but I accept that I may be mistaken about that.)

Taking that into account, I should value comments on whether the list is exhaustive, whether any items are superfluous and whether any should be combined or renamed.

Supply and Demand
Welfare Economics
International Economics
Neoclassical Economics
Monetary Economics
Endogenous Growth Theory
Competition
Competition Policy
Economic Efficiency
General Equilibrium
Cost/benefit Analysis
The Budgetary "Golden Rule"
Public Goods
Economic models
Social Choice theory
Sustainability
The Precautionary Principle
Patent Law
The Austrian School

Thanks for this list [and all your work!], Nick. This list of non-existing articles should be combined with the list I made above, and also included in the CZ:Core articles page CZ:Core_Articles. I don't know if you have been there, but it is an attempt to get things moving on CZ. Feel free to amend it, otherwise I will add to the list from your new list above, when I have some free time. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 06:46, 13 October 2007 (CDT)

Nick Gardner 05:34, 13 October 2007 (CDT)

Proposed Core Articles[edit]

I have amended the CZ: core articles page by substituting for the existing list a combination of the articles mentioned above.

The revised list is as follows. (The allocation of points is tentative.)

Nick Gardner 04:19, 18 October 2007 (CDT)

(10) = worth this number of points * = external, to replace or rewrite ** = micro-stub

HIGH PRIORITY

LOWER PRIORITY

LOWEST PRIORITY

Already-written core articles in this workgroup

(Core Article points not available for these articles.)

Start listing already-existing core articles here

Second column

Third column

Financial Economics[edit]

This is a plea to authors who are finance professionals to spare a little time to cast a critical eye over the draft article on Financial economics. It is a branch of economics which is outside my range of professional experience. I am reasonably confident about its factual accuracy, but I am not sure that I have got the balance right. Nick Gardner 02:03, 29 March 2008 (CDT)

Banking[edit]

People wishing to better understand the financial crisis want to know more about banking. I know that among you are authors who are well-informed about that topic. If you are one of them, please go to the vacant banking article and make a start. Nick Gardner 20:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a copy of the main Economics Workgroup page taken on Jan 19 2012[edit]

WELCOME TO THE ECONOMICS WORKGROUP[edit]

Contributions - drafting of new articles, comments on existing articles and editing of existing articles - are welcome, particularly from authors who are economics professionals or economics graduates or undergraduates.

Contributions from professionals or students of other disciplines concerning the clarity of existing articles are also very welcome. The main pages, addendum subpages and timeline subpages (but not the tutorials subpages) of the economics articles are intended to be readily accessible to educated non-economists (with the help of the glossaries on the related articles sub-pages where necessary). Comments drawing attention to passages that do not meet that requirement are particularly welcome.

Under the rules of Citizendium all authors and editors are entitled to edit existing articles, but experience has shown that misunderstandings tend to arise if alterations are made without first inviting discussion on the article's talk page - as a result, for example, of lack of awareness of the specialised interpretations that economists apply to some everyday terms. The CZ tradition is to be courteusly responsive to criticism.

As far as I am aware, the economics workgroup does not at present have an active economics editor. I am not an editor but I have been active as an economics author for just over a year, and I should be happy to show the ropes to newcomers, and to do what I can to help in other ways. You can contact me by putting a message on my user page [1] or on the discussion page of this workgroup page.Nick Gardner 17:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I am now an editor, and I should be happy to provide assistance in that capacity. Nick Gardner 11:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Core articles[edit]

The 2007-8 part of this workgroup page contained a list of proposed "core articles", most of which have since been written (for a list, see the article on economics).

Still outstanding are the following:

Budget deficit
Business economics
Economic history
Economics of the firm
Economic models
Endogenous growth
General equilibrium
Precautionary principle
Rational expectations
Sustainability

Nick Gardner 17:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Notes on the format that has been adopted for the economics articles[edit]

With the agreement of the then economics editor Martin Baldwin Edwards, I have adopted the following practices.

main page articles are written for the needs of non-economists and others who lack familiarity with mathematical and graphical means of expression;
graphs, charts, equations and matter, the understanding of which, requires familiarity with economic theory are confined to the Tutorials subpage;
subordinate material, the inclusion of which would disrupt the continuity of the presentation in the main table is normally placed on the Addendum subpage;
maximum use is made of the Timelines subpages;
generally acceptable sources are quoted for every statement on any of the pages that is likely to have a significant influence upon the reader's understanding. Nick Gardner 19:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Use the Forum ![edit]

You can air your views on all matters concerning the economics articles, other than those that only concern an individual article - and that could trigger a lively and informative debate.

Nick Gardner 19:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible deletions[edit]

I am reviewing the economics articles in order to identify possible candidates for deletion. I should welcome comments and contributions.Nick Gardner 11:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC).

I have, so far, identified the following as candidates for deleting or blanking:

cost of debt -- blanked (definition)
interest (finance) -- moved to interest rate and blanked (definition)
time value of money -- blanked (definition)
yield to maturity -- blanked (redirect to Yield (finance))

Nick Gardner 10:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Fine. Also interest(disambiguation). Martin Baldwin-Edwards 13:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I have blanked these four articles up to a definition (as indicated above). --Peter Schmitt 21:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Setting up a group of linked articles on a common topic[edit]

The CZ wiki has the potential of generating more navigable and user friendly articles than would be possible on Wikipedia, by creating sets of linked articles on common topics.

Among issues to consider when creating or bringing together a set of linked articles are its provisions for coordination, terminology, navigation and adaptation. Here are some suggestions

CZ ‘s system of editors gives it a major advantage in the provision of coordination. It would obviously be a help if the active editors of the workgroup concerned were to agree in advance upon the selection of a lead editor, who would then be responsible for advising authors on matters such as consistency of terminology, avoidance of excessive duplication, and ease of navigation.

CZ experts (including me) are apt to use without explanation, terms that they mistakenly believe to be widely understood. Links to lemma article definitions overcome that problem, but without coordination the system can become chaotic with rival definitions as variants of the same concept. The creation of a central glossary as a subpage to the “main article” (of which more later) provides the required coordination, provided that authors learn to refer to it, and to use it for lemma creating. Lemma articles can’t provide an in-depth explanation of a concept but that can be provided either by a link to a stand-alone article on the concept or a link to a headed paragraph in an article on a different article (using the # connector).

What I have called the “main article” could serve as the navigation centre for the new group of articles. One of its subpages could be an alphabetical index of articles and topics within articles, with links to article titles and to the headed paragraphs containing the topics. Another subpage could provide a thematic or “taxonomic” index (like the Economics/Related Articles subpage) in which links to articles and headed paragraphs are shown in alphabetical order under each of a series of subject headings . The related articles subpage of every article in the group could then display links to both indexes.

To preserve adaptability, the organising framework could be allowed to evolve as an "open system" that could develop interdisciplinary links and node articles (like the sociology/politics/economics article on social capital), and with the eventual possibility of a link from a "metagroup"

Nick Gardner 11:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)