CZ:Economics Workgroup

Workgroups are no longer used for group communications, but they still are used to group articles into fields of interest. Each article is assigned to 1-3 Workgroups via the article's Metadata.

Economics Workgroup
Economics article	All articles (361)	To Approve (0)	Editors: active (0) / inactive (13) and Authors: active (172) / inactive (0)	Workgroup Discussion
	Recent changes	Citable Articles (12)
		Subgroups (5)

Checklist-generated categories: Underlinked (130) Cat Check (130) Cleanup (0) Subpage categories: Definitions (354) Related Articles (304 to check 103) Bibliography (125) External Links (96) Gallery (2) Video (1)

Missing subpage categories: Definitions (6) Related Articles (5) Bibliography (4) External Links (5) Article statuses: 50 Developed (status=1) 163 Developing (status=2) 132 Stub (status=3) 3 External (status=4) 62 Advanced (status 0-1) 225 Nonstub (status 0-2) 357 Internal (status 0-3)

(The previous contents of the CZ:Economics Workgroup page, covering the years 2007 and 2008, is archived with the talk page contents [1]).

WELCOME TO THE ECONOMICS WORKGROUP

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 [2] 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

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

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 !

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

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

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"

Setting up a group of linked articles on a common topic

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)