Talk:Delphi method: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 05:36, 29 March 2013

Revision as of 18:21, 8 August 2013

Line 35:

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.

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)