Talk:Delphi method: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 00:02, 7 June 2015

Latest revision as of 06:47, 8 October 2024

(16 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Talkheader}}

{{WikiProject Futures studies |class=C}}

{{WikiProject Software}}banner shell|class=C|

{{WikiProject Futures studies |class=C}}

{{WPStatistics}}

{{WikiProject Statistics|importance=low}}

}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

| algo = old(365d)

| archive = Talk:Delphi method/Archive %(counter)d

| counter = 1

| maxarchivesize = 150K

| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}

| minthreadstoarchive = 1

| minthreadsleft = 2

}}

This article is imported from [[Everything2]]; see their [http://everything2.com/title/Delphi+method Dephi method page].

== Some moved content ==

== Consensus building or forecasting ? ==

are the two concepts related ? same name for two different things ? [[User:Flammifer|Flammifer]] 02:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

:not the same thing at all. A single person can forecast stuff.--[[User:RichardVeryard|RichardVeryard]] 16:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

==Lead section==

This article needs a coherent [[Wikipedia:Lead section|Lead section]]. — [[User:CatherineMunro|Catherine]]\^{[[User_talk:CatherineMunro|talk]]} 19:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

== Philosophical grounding ==

I think the opening reference to Hegel is pretentious and probably inaccurate. The Linstone and Turoff book ([http://is.njit.edu/pubs/delphibook/ch2a.html Chapter 2a], [http://is.njit.edu/pubs/delphibook/ch2b.html Chapter 2b]) references Hegel among other philosophers, but identifies [[John Locke|Locke]], [[Edgar Arthur Singer|E A Singer]] and [[C. West Churchman]] as more significant figures. Has anyone got a source for a specifically Hegelian account of Delphi, or is this "original research". --[[User:RichardVeryard|RichardVeryard]] 16:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

:Well, the dialectic process of thesis, antithesis and synthesis is Hegelian, so he does deserve to be mentioned - if the process actually is that important in Delphi method, which I my opinion is a statement that should indeed be referenced to somewhere. -- [[User:Flambergius|Flambergius]]

But Hegel never used the triadic structure of "thesis, antithesis, and synthesis" in reference to his own systems! [[User:70.37.8.95|70.37.8.95]] 17:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

== Education Reform Section ==

I do not believe that the last section on Education Reform is relevant to the discussion on the Delphi method, and should be dropped. In fact, the use of the Delphi method is not even mentioned in the discussion of Education Reform, except to say that it is a "scam".

:Here is the old diff in case anyone's interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Delphi_method&diff=prev&oldid=68719030

:I've removed the [[Education reform]] category, since it was now meaningless. --[[User:Argav|Argav]] [[User talk:Argav|۞]] 02:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

==Merge [[Delphi effect]]==

I see the [[Talk:Delphi effect|talk page discussion]], but even it seems to point towards [[Delphi effect]] being a redirect, and as that page says itself that the two terms are probably referring to the same thing, just named differently, merging would be quite appropriate. I'd do it, but I can barely understand what it all is. -[[User:Bbik|Bbik]]<span style="font-size:85%;">^{[[User talk:Bbik|★]]}</span> 19:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

:I'll do it here shortly. [[User:ImperfectlyInformed|ImpIn]] | ([[User_talk:ImperfectlyInformed|t]] - [[Special:Contributions/ImperfectlyInformed|c]]) 12:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

==Conflict of interest tag==

One of the citations in the article (to a paper by Green, Armstrong, and Graefe) was added by a single-purpose account, Agraefe, who has focused on promoting the work of Mr. Graefe; hence it's questionable whether the reference in question is truly necessary and relevant. I'm not an expert in the subject, but someone should look over it, and remove the tag and possibly the reference. [[User:Seleucus|Seleucus]] ([[User talk:Seleucus|talk]]) 16:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The reference is relevant, there is no question about it. The comparison to prediction markets is useful. Unless someone suggests a better reference comparing the two, we should keep this one. [[Special:Contributions/70.36.142.34|70.36.142.34]] ([[User talk:70.36.142.34|talk]]) 05:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC).

== Calling criticism "conspiracy theory" is biased; lack of attention to legitimate criticism; NPOV ==

I just came to this story for the first time. I see that potentially legitimate criticism is cast as "conspiracy theory," and it's relegated to the very last substantive section. Also, variants of the method's use that may be coercive in nature are completely missing. That all smacks of bias.

And completely missing is any criticism whatsoever discussed in an encyclopedic manner instead of as a "conspiracy theory."

There apparently are many uses of the method to direct the outcome of public meetings so the public thinks it made a decision that the meeting's organizers subtly manipulated them into. I don't know that for myself. But I see a lot on the Internet about that. It is totally missing from this article, except as "conspiracy theory."

As written, the article describes a use of the method that does not mirror how it is sometimes used in practice, such as in municipal land use meetings. The missing descriptions of the variants of the method's execution adds to the appearance of bias.

I'd like to see this story improved with accurate, unbiased information about the Delphi method and how it appears in all its forms, not just the one shown. I don't know enough about the subject, and I doubt I'll get involved, but the page reads like an advertisement in support of the method and all its undisclosed variants, even though such variants are the apparent means by which communities are pushed. As I said, I really don't know if that's the case, but it sure is totally missing from this or cast as "conspiracy," and I'd like to come here to get the full story, not what appears to be someone's view.

Words like "conservative" and "theorized" and "attempted mind control" and "apparent credence" and "conspiracy theories regarding the UN initiative Agenda 21" basically screams out biased, unencyclopedic content and agenda pushing.

@[[User:Uclneaxel|Uclneaxel]]: Since I'm unsure how this highly detailed sentence which you contributed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Delphi_method&diff=prev&oldid=970302753 here] fits into the broader context, I'm moving it here for possible comment: <blockquote>The Delphi approach has been successfully employed to improve agreement between experts in iterative rating exercises on clinical test results using inter-rater kappa statistics as an outcome measure.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Petzold A, Biousse V, Bursztyn L, Costello F, Crum A, Digre K, Fraser C, Fraser JA, Katz B, Jurkute N, Newman N, Lautrup-Battistini J, Lawlor M, Liskova P, Lorenz B, Malmqvist L, Peragallo J, Sibony P, Subramanian P, Rejdak R, Nowomiejska K, Touitou V, Warner J, Wegener M, Wong S, Yu-Wai-Man P, Hamann S | display-authors = 6 | title = Multirater Validation of Peripapillary Hyperreflective Ovoid Mass-like Structures (PHOMS) | journal = Neuro-Ophthalmology | volume = 44 | issue = 6 | pages = 413–414 | date = 16 July 2020 | pmid = 33408429 | pmc = 7746256 | doi = 10.1080/01658107.2020.1760891 }}</ref></blockquote>

I'm doing us all a favor by not adding an NPOV tag. I may if the page is not improved. --[[User:Lawfare|Lawfare]] ([[User talk:Lawfare|talk]]) 18:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

{{Reflist-talk}}

[[Special:Contributions/86.161.190.114|86.161.190.114]] ([[User talk:86.161.190.114|talk]]) 15:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

:Thank you. I agree. [[User:DscoteseUclneaxel|DscoteseUclneaxel]] ([[User talk:DscoteseUclneaxel|talk]]) 0018:0237, 729 JuneJanuary 20152024 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia!

== RAND/UCLA appropriateness method ==

It's interesting to note how no-one has countered what you have written there. Certain Wikipedia editors are quite conversant and accomplished in their knowledge and use of the Delphi Technique... allegedly! I agree with what you have written, but I fear it's like talking to the proverbial brick wall... [[Special:Contributions/70.238.217.144|70.238.217.144]] ([[User talk:70.238.217.144|talk]]) 13:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The RAND/UCLA appropriateness method is a notable absence under the variations subheading. It is commonly used in medical and clinical research settings with expert panels of specialist physicians.

:This section of the talk page is great evidence of the value of the talk pages. I will introduce the term "Change agent" into the article and we'll see who comes around to try to remove it. [[User:Dscotese|Dscotese]] ([[User talk:Dscotese|talk]]) 23:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2023/10/generating-evidence-using-the-delphi-method.html

== The Deceptive Version ==

If anyone knows of a more [[WP:Reliability|reliable source]] than the north coast journal for the name that is proper to the activity described at [[http://www.vlrc.org/articles/110.html|this VLRC page]], please replace the one I provided.

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/2011/MR1269.pdf [[User:Instantwatym|Instantwatym]] ([[User talk:Instantwatym|talk]]) 03:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

If anyone feels that this page is the wrong place to represent the manufacturing of consent as described on that VLRC page, please make a stub for a page that would be the right place.

[[User:Dscotese|Dscotese]] ([[User talk:Dscotese|talk]]) 00:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)