Talk:Austrian Business Cycle Theory: Difference between revisions
Forgottenman (talk | contribs) →References: new section |
Pestergaines (talk | contribs) answer |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
There needs to be a greater effort to attibute claims/statements in all article to peer-reviewed, academic sources. The Business Cycle article is useless for intellectual purposes due to the complete carelessness in sourcing. --LiberalCast <small>''(comment moved from [[Talk:Main Page]]'')</small> | There needs to be a greater effort to attibute claims/statements in all article to peer-reviewed, academic sources. The Business Cycle article is useless for intellectual purposes due to the complete carelessness in sourcing. --LiberalCast <small>''(comment moved from [[Talk:Main Page]]'')</small> | ||
Hallo LiberalCast, | |||
in general I agree with you, we should be more careful to source claims and statements to their sources, the more prestigious the better. Their improvement is an ongoing process - that is what the wiki is for, after all. | |||
However, I cannot agree with the "useless for intellectual purposes" claim on your part. Even if we were to agree, that peer-reviewed, academic sources are for all purposes better (which is debatable at best), it does not even remotely follow that a given page is 'useless'. Any carelessness is of course to blame on our part, and you would greatly help us by pointing out where we can improve things. [[User:Pestergaines|Pestergaines]] 02:56, 9 March 2011 (CST) | |||
Revision as of 08:56, 9 March 2011
An interesting resource is here, in case someone wants to gather evidence of the more statistical kind: The impact of short-term interest rates on risk-taking: hard evidence by Vasso P. Ioannidou, Steven Ongena and Jose Luis Peydro, October 2007. Pestergaines 17:22, 26 January 2011 (CST)
References
There needs to be a greater effort to attibute claims/statements in all article to peer-reviewed, academic sources. The Business Cycle article is useless for intellectual purposes due to the complete carelessness in sourcing. --LiberalCast (comment moved from Talk:Main Page)
Hallo LiberalCast,
in general I agree with you, we should be more careful to source claims and statements to their sources, the more prestigious the better. Their improvement is an ongoing process - that is what the wiki is for, after all.
However, I cannot agree with the "useless for intellectual purposes" claim on your part. Even if we were to agree, that peer-reviewed, academic sources are for all purposes better (which is debatable at best), it does not even remotely follow that a given page is 'useless'. Any carelessness is of course to blame on our part, and you would greatly help us by pointing out where we can improve things. Pestergaines 02:56, 9 March 2011 (CST)