![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Should this be merged with Risk Management? GESICC ( talk) 00:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
There was a ton of gibberish added under Economic Risk on this page back in June at revision 666904249. It can't be reverted simply at this point due to subsequent changes.
I am not particularly conversant with current wikipedia etiquette regarding reverting such changes. Should the gibberish simply be excised? Is there a discussion protocol? TedDunning ( talk) 21:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
This Wiki article has got to be the least valuable, the least informative, the most non-notable article about essentially nothing more than trying to expand the definition of one word for no apparent purpose but to fill up space, during the very early days (2002) of Wikipedia. It is a suitable subject for dictionaries, but not for encyclopedias. Most of what is stated in the article boils down to meaningless, silly, glittering generality statements, which convey no useful information.
This statement, for example, is not only silly, but pretty much one of OR: "Risk can also be defined as the intentional interaction with uncertainty. Uncertainty is a potential, unpredictable, and uncontrollable outcome; risk is a consequence of action taken in spite of uncertainty." What about risks of Nature itself --- disease, tornadoes, earthquakes, giant meteors that smash into Earth, etc.? Can that kind of risk be properly defined as "intentional interaction?" And, how can anyone actually "interact" with "uncertainty?" For an actual human to interact with some THING, that "thing" must have some kind of physical substance to it... "Uncertainty" is NOT a thing. To the contrary, it amounts to nothing more than our inability to predict the future. One does not "intentionally interact" with what we cannot know about the future. Such statements are absurd poppycock. EditorASC ( talk) 09:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Cline found that the post-financial definition of risk (potential for loss) failed him as an educational definition of risk, because he considered engaging in risk was necessary for effective education and human development. He considered that attempting to protect children from all hazards results in adults unable to interact with uncertainty in any way other than fear and anger ( Cline 2007 ). He suggested the expression “Human interaction with Uncertainty” as an educational definition of risk, based on one of the pre-financial definitions of risk, i.e., adventure. I think it also echoes a concern in the conventional risk industry that excessive risk avoidance hampers innovation.
That said, the phrase “Risk can also be defined as the intentional interaction with uncertainty.” is definitely a widely used recent meme (introduced to the Risk article in late 2013); perhaps misattributed to Knight, 1921. My particular (amateur?) concern is that the use of this phrase is a case of a creeping fox terrier clone. Has this phrase been recently adopted simply because it appeared in this form in Wikipedia?
At the very least, this is a new definition of risk, but potentially significant, now appearing in risk management journals and glossaries, so maybe it should not be completely deleted from the article; but, syntactically and epistemologically, I don’t think it is presently properly presented, but I could be wrong.
(Is this a Wikipedia-induced meme, or not? Does it matter in this case?) IveGoneAway ( talk) 15:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Should this be merged with Risk Management? GESICC ( talk) 00:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
There was a ton of gibberish added under Economic Risk on this page back in June at revision 666904249. It can't be reverted simply at this point due to subsequent changes.
I am not particularly conversant with current wikipedia etiquette regarding reverting such changes. Should the gibberish simply be excised? Is there a discussion protocol? TedDunning ( talk) 21:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
This Wiki article has got to be the least valuable, the least informative, the most non-notable article about essentially nothing more than trying to expand the definition of one word for no apparent purpose but to fill up space, during the very early days (2002) of Wikipedia. It is a suitable subject for dictionaries, but not for encyclopedias. Most of what is stated in the article boils down to meaningless, silly, glittering generality statements, which convey no useful information.
This statement, for example, is not only silly, but pretty much one of OR: "Risk can also be defined as the intentional interaction with uncertainty. Uncertainty is a potential, unpredictable, and uncontrollable outcome; risk is a consequence of action taken in spite of uncertainty." What about risks of Nature itself --- disease, tornadoes, earthquakes, giant meteors that smash into Earth, etc.? Can that kind of risk be properly defined as "intentional interaction?" And, how can anyone actually "interact" with "uncertainty?" For an actual human to interact with some THING, that "thing" must have some kind of physical substance to it... "Uncertainty" is NOT a thing. To the contrary, it amounts to nothing more than our inability to predict the future. One does not "intentionally interact" with what we cannot know about the future. Such statements are absurd poppycock. EditorASC ( talk) 09:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Cline found that the post-financial definition of risk (potential for loss) failed him as an educational definition of risk, because he considered engaging in risk was necessary for effective education and human development. He considered that attempting to protect children from all hazards results in adults unable to interact with uncertainty in any way other than fear and anger ( Cline 2007 ). He suggested the expression “Human interaction with Uncertainty” as an educational definition of risk, based on one of the pre-financial definitions of risk, i.e., adventure. I think it also echoes a concern in the conventional risk industry that excessive risk avoidance hampers innovation.
That said, the phrase “Risk can also be defined as the intentional interaction with uncertainty.” is definitely a widely used recent meme (introduced to the Risk article in late 2013); perhaps misattributed to Knight, 1921. My particular (amateur?) concern is that the use of this phrase is a case of a creeping fox terrier clone. Has this phrase been recently adopted simply because it appeared in this form in Wikipedia?
At the very least, this is a new definition of risk, but potentially significant, now appearing in risk management journals and glossaries, so maybe it should not be completely deleted from the article; but, syntactically and epistemologically, I don’t think it is presently properly presented, but I could be wrong.
(Is this a Wikipedia-induced meme, or not? Does it matter in this case?) IveGoneAway ( talk) 15:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)