This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
We should be fair even to financial pundits and mental deficients. It is not inconsistent with Mackay to invoke the central limit theorem and say that the average is - in the long run - better than any single estimator; most advisors fell for the South Sea bubble. Does Surowiecki actually deny Mackay's point or is the comparison WP:SYNTH? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the article badly needs a critical reception section - part of why there is an article about this book is that it has an enduring influence, particularly in regards to the economy. Currently the critical reception material is inappropriately included in the Bubbles section - the Surowiecki material in particular seems out of place there, since it isn't really about 'Bubbles' specifically; it's really about the whole idea of the decision-making capacity of crowds. Does anyone have any objections to the splitting off of this material into such a section? Nwlaw63 ( talk) 21:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I consider it important to emphasize that Mackay was not a scholar or scientist, but rather a popular writer trying to make a pound. Could you leave the lede as "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds is a popular history of popular folly." ? Certainly nobody can disagree with the statement, and the popular appeal is covered in the body of the article. Smallbones ( talk) 22:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
On Amazon and Goodreads there are references to a volume 3. In this article there are only paragraphs about volume 1 and 2, how come? 1Veertje ( talk) 01:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
The term "genre" applies to distinctive brands of fiction. Romance is a genre. Science fiction novels are a genre. Mystery is a genre. "Non-fiction" is definitely not a genre, and it makes Wikipedia look pretty stupid to list it as one. Template:Infobox book is quite clear that "subject" applies to works of non-fiction, whereas "genre" applies only to fiction. It was GrahamHardy who drew my attention to this here. So I am perplexed by this unfortunate edit by Beyond My Ken, who as an experienced user ought to be familiar with Wikipedia's conventions on this matter. Believe it or not, Beyond My Ken, I have no interest in pursuing some conflict with you. I am happy to stay out of your way for the most part. I do hope your revert was something more than an expression of petty personal hostility. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 20:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
What is the question? A third opinion has been requested. What (exactly) is the question. Please be civil and concise. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
The Template:Infobox book guideline indicates that genre should be given only for works of non-fiction. WP:CONLEVEL applies: i.e. to include genre here, you must first gain consensus to change the guideline. HTH— Aquegg ( talk) 22:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
FreeKnowledgeCreator, I looked at your link for Genre, and the definition says genre "is any category of literature...whether written or spoken". Then I looked deeper into Literature. "Literature can be classified according to whether it is fiction or non-fiction". That seems to suggest that non-fiction works are allowed. Billyh45 ( talk) 01:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the infobox of the article Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds include the "genre" field? FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 06:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
We should be fair even to financial pundits and mental deficients. It is not inconsistent with Mackay to invoke the central limit theorem and say that the average is - in the long run - better than any single estimator; most advisors fell for the South Sea bubble. Does Surowiecki actually deny Mackay's point or is the comparison WP:SYNTH? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the article badly needs a critical reception section - part of why there is an article about this book is that it has an enduring influence, particularly in regards to the economy. Currently the critical reception material is inappropriately included in the Bubbles section - the Surowiecki material in particular seems out of place there, since it isn't really about 'Bubbles' specifically; it's really about the whole idea of the decision-making capacity of crowds. Does anyone have any objections to the splitting off of this material into such a section? Nwlaw63 ( talk) 21:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I consider it important to emphasize that Mackay was not a scholar or scientist, but rather a popular writer trying to make a pound. Could you leave the lede as "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds is a popular history of popular folly." ? Certainly nobody can disagree with the statement, and the popular appeal is covered in the body of the article. Smallbones ( talk) 22:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
On Amazon and Goodreads there are references to a volume 3. In this article there are only paragraphs about volume 1 and 2, how come? 1Veertje ( talk) 01:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
The term "genre" applies to distinctive brands of fiction. Romance is a genre. Science fiction novels are a genre. Mystery is a genre. "Non-fiction" is definitely not a genre, and it makes Wikipedia look pretty stupid to list it as one. Template:Infobox book is quite clear that "subject" applies to works of non-fiction, whereas "genre" applies only to fiction. It was GrahamHardy who drew my attention to this here. So I am perplexed by this unfortunate edit by Beyond My Ken, who as an experienced user ought to be familiar with Wikipedia's conventions on this matter. Believe it or not, Beyond My Ken, I have no interest in pursuing some conflict with you. I am happy to stay out of your way for the most part. I do hope your revert was something more than an expression of petty personal hostility. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 20:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
What is the question? A third opinion has been requested. What (exactly) is the question. Please be civil and concise. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
The Template:Infobox book guideline indicates that genre should be given only for works of non-fiction. WP:CONLEVEL applies: i.e. to include genre here, you must first gain consensus to change the guideline. HTH— Aquegg ( talk) 22:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
FreeKnowledgeCreator, I looked at your link for Genre, and the definition says genre "is any category of literature...whether written or spoken". Then I looked deeper into Literature. "Literature can be classified according to whether it is fiction or non-fiction". That seems to suggest that non-fiction works are allowed. Billyh45 ( talk) 01:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the infobox of the article Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds include the "genre" field? FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 06:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)