|
This article is imported from [[Everything2]]; see their [http://everything2.com/title/Delphi+method Dephi method page].
== 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]]\<sup>[[User_talk:CatherineMunro|talk]]</sup> 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%;"><sup>[[User talk:Bbik|★]]</sup></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 must agree with most of the above. This article contains not even a hint that the method is open to abuse by the facilitator. While it might be considered conspiracy material, this item (http://www.freedomadvocates.org/download/research/USD-A21-pamphlet_2012.pdf) contains an excellent cartoon on the topic: a Delphi Technique seminar for facilitators, where the leader is saying "Our objective is to get the answers *we* want and make the citizens *think* they're participating in the public process while all the decisions have already been made beforehand!!!". I'm not saying the Delphi method is always abused; I'm simply saying that this article conspicuously fails to mention the possibility. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/174.114.112.13|174.114.112.13]] ([[User talk:174.114.112.13#top|talk]]) 14:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== 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.
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)
== External links modified ==
| 