Talk:Delphi method/Archive 1

Archive 1

Lead section

This article needs a coherent Lead section. — Catherine\^talk 19:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Consensus building or forecasting ?

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

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

Philosophical grounding

I think the opening reference to Hegel is pretentious and probably inaccurate. The Linstone and Turoff book (Chapter 2a, Chapter 2b) references Hegel among other philosophers, but identifies Locke, 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". --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. -- Flambergius

But Hegel never used the triadic structure of "thesis, antithesis, and synthesis" in reference to his own systems! 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. --Argav ۞ 02:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge Delphi effect

I see the 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. -Bbik^★ 19:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll do it here shortly. ImpIn | (t - 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. 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. 70.36.142.34 (talk) 05:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC).

The Deceptive Version

If anyone knows of a more reliable source than the north coast journal for the name that is proper to the activity described at [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. Dscotese (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Delphi method. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080520015240/http://is.njit.edu/pubs/delphibook/ to http://is.njit.edu/pubs/delphibook/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:41, 8 September 2017 (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. --Lawfare (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia!

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... 70.238.217.144 (talk) 13:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

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. Dscotese (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.114.112.13 (talk) 14:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)