CZ Talk:Economics Workgroup

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

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

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

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

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)