User:Cretog8/RS

Here I'm trying to keep track of thoughts on what is/isn't a reliable source, hopefully linking to relevant discussions.

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard Special:LinkSearch

Current questions:

• scienceofbioeconomics.com RS search finds nothing
• Z magazine -- RS-search finds nothing
• Reason (magazine) -- RS-search finds nothing
• econlib.org (Concise Encyclopedia of Economics) -- RS-search finds nothing
• mises.org -- RS-search find nothing
• lewrockwell.com -- RS-search finds this which generally finds it a non-RS and this which was an unsuccessful attempt to discuss.
• Cato institute -- RS-search finds nothing
  • freetrade.org is part of Cato
• Economic Policy Institute -- RS-search finds nothing
• Heritage Foundation -- RS-search finds nothing
• CEPR -- RS-search 1
• CBPP -- RS-search 1 and 2 find nothing
• Encyclopedia of Earth -- RS-search 1 and 2 find nothing search
• The Economist, Econ A-Z -- RS-search finds this and this (which doesn't say much) -- My concern with The Economist is that it seems to integrate opinion and news without distinction, so while it's quite respectable, any particular bit of analysis could be POV.
• Working papers at SSRN -- widely varying in quality. one discussion at RS.
• Working papers at NBER -- usually very respectable, but still only working papers. Also usually tricky to access
• International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences
• Institute for the Study of Complex Systems
• New School's HET
• economyprofessor.com
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
• utilitarian.net
• friesian.com
• National Center for Policy Analysis
• the-idea-shop.com -- probably not RS, self-published
• www.cvoice.org -- looks like informal "Journal"
• reality.gn.apc.org -- probably non-RS
• www.libertarian.co.uk -- presumably not
• robertvienneau.blogspot.com -- blog search
• selfuniverse.com -- blog search
• www.goldensextant.com -- seems to be considered RS by some Austrians & goldbugs on those topics? I remain confused.
• www.businessdictionary.com
• about.com -- it seems like there shouldn't be anything in there which can't be reproduced for here without referencing it
• seekingalpha.com search
• ciovaccocapital.com search
• beat-the market -- not really a RS issue, but Beat the market seems to be promoted a bit, but doesn't seem to provide much of anything without a login. Seems like useless link generally. (Also through [1] at [2] search
• banknetindia.com
• laborfair.com -- probably no good, it's a wiki...?
• globalisationinstitute.org -- may actually be dead link
• Foundation for Economic Education (fee.org)
• antitrustworldwiki.com -- stats?
• globalsecurity.org
• Econmodel search
• gametheory.net
• [Counterpunch -- [3] finds (brief mention), (slightly helpful), Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_2#Counterpunch (mostly not RS), (brief mention), (brief mention), (brief mention), (two brief mentions), brief mention
• http://history-world.org/
• Scholarpedia -- Note that only some articles are free, they can also be copyright the author.
• Sourcewatch -- [4] finds one section brief, but positive.
• Politico --RS #1 RS #2
• Recession.org -- Looks suspiciously like a one-man operation, pretty diligently run, but not particularly authoritative. search
• oureconomy.org -- offshoot of recession.org
• blackcrayon.com -- looks to be self-publshed
• synapse9.com search
• basiceconomics.info search
• brandingstrategyinsider.com search
• www.naturalmoney.org search
• www.shadowstats.com search
• www.nowandfutures.com search
• www.skew-lognormal-cascade-distribution.org
• Krugman's blog versus his columns or scholarly writings. search
• shadow government statistics search
• econphd.net search
• maynardkeynes.org Good name, but who does it? search
• thomaswhite.com Not sure if it's a RS, and if it is, whether it's being used appropriately. search
• brandingstrategyinsider.com search
• Rodger Mitchell blog search also search
• Intellecutal Takeout, looks like it links elsewhere and that those direct links should be used instead. search
• Spammishness for Heritage Auctions, [5], [6]
• Spammishness for Abinomics, [7]
• Sigmadewe? [8]
• E-M-H (efficient market hypothesis) [9]

Economics Web Institute

• economicswebinstitute.org.

IP Editor writes: It has been considered as reliable source in a study by the Policy Department of European Parliament, by a peer-reviewed article in Technovation, Volume 29, Issue 5, Pages 338-350, by the 2006 inaugural lecture of Ilorin University, by "Repères bibliographiques concernant l'évolution économique et social au Luxembourg à parti du début du 20e siècle and several other reliable third-party publications, some of which can be browsed through Google.

• by the Policy Department of European Parliament used for Italy's GDP numbers
• a peer-reviewed article in Technovation, Volume 29, Issue 5, Pages 338-350 references essay by Piana on ABM
• 2006 inaugural lecture of Ilorin University Not sure, references article by Piana but not from economicswebinstutite
• "Repères bibliographiques concernant l'évolution économique et social au Luxembourg à parti du début du 20e siècle can't judge this, not being able to read French

I'm still not sure where this leaves it as a reliable source. I would trust it for factual numbers such as GDP, but would rather go to a more primary source for such numbers. The rest it still seems needs to be judged on a case-by-case basis. Not sure about this, I haven't given this list much thought lately.

I should add that I'm skeptical of information on the site, seeing that this essay misrepresents standard consumer theory.

• Is your choice completely independent from what others decide or what you have already at home?
• Is your pocket empty when exiting? Do you exhaust always your budget?
• Is what you chose "optimal" so that next time, given your unchanged income and the same prices, you'll choose exactly the same thing?

The answer to all of these questions would be (or could be) "No" in very standard consumer theory.

I removed several links which I felt were inappropriate. There's still a few links to the site which I find questionable, but I'm not eager to act on right now.