User:Cretog8/RS

Here I'm trying to keep track of thoughts on what is/isn't a reliable source, hopefully linking to relevant discussions.

Reliable_sources/Noticeboard Special:LinkSearch

Current questions:
 * scienceofbioeconomics.com RS search finds nothing
 * Z magazine -- RS-search finds nothing
 * Reason (magazine) -- RS-search finds nothing
 * econlib.org (Concise Encyclopedia of Economics) -- RS-search finds nothing
 * mises.org -- RS-search find nothing
 * lewrockwell.com -- RS-search finds this which generally finds it a non-RS and this which was an unsuccessful attempt to discuss.
 * Cato institute -- RS-search finds nothing
 * freetrade.org is part of Cato
 * Economic Policy Institute -- RS-search finds nothing
 * Heritage Foundation -- RS-search finds nothing
 * CEPR -- RS-search 1
 * CBPP -- RS-search 1 and 2 find nothing
 * Encyclopedia of Earth -- RS-search 1 and 2 find nothing search
 * The Economist, Econ A-Z -- RS-search finds this and this (which doesn't say much) -- My concern with The Economist is that it seems to integrate opinion and news without distinction, so while it's quite respectable, any particular bit of analysis could be POV.
 * Working papers at SSRN -- widely varying in quality. one discussion at RS.
 * Working papers at NBER -- usually very respectable, but still only working papers. Also usually tricky to access
 * International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences
 * Institute for the Study of Complex Systems
 * New School's HET
 * economyprofessor.com
 * Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
 * utilitarian.net
 * friesian.com
 * National Center for Policy Analysis
 * the-idea-shop.com -- probably not RS, self-published
 * www.cvoice.org -- looks like informal "Journal"
 * reality.gn.apc.org -- probably non-RS
 * www.libertarian.co.uk -- presumably not
 * robertvienneau.blogspot.com -- blog search
 * selfuniverse.com -- blog search
 * www.goldensextant.com -- seems to be considered RS by some Austrians & goldbugs on those topics? I remain confused.
 * www.businessdictionary.com
 * about.com -- it seems like there shouldn't be anything in there which can't be reproduced for here without referencing it
 * seekingalpha.com search
 * ciovaccocapital.com search
 * beat-the market -- not really a RS issue, but Beat the market seems to be promoted a bit, but doesn't seem to provide much of anything without a login. Seems like useless link generally. (Also through at   search
 * banknetindia.com
 * laborfair.com -- probably no good, it's a wiki...?
 * globalisationinstitute.org -- may actually be dead link
 * Foundation for Economic Education (fee.org)
 * antitrustworldwiki.com -- stats?
 * globalsecurity.org
 * Econmodel search
 * gametheory.net
 * [Counterpunch -- finds [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_1|(brief mention)]], (slightly helpful), Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_2, (brief mention), (brief mention), (brief mention), (two brief mentions), brief mention
 * http://history-world.org/
 * Scholarpedia -- Note that only some articles are free, they can also be copyright the author.
 * Sourcewatch -- finds one section brief, but positive.
 * Politico --RS #1 RS #2
 * Recession.org -- Looks suspiciously like a one-man operation, pretty diligently run, but not particularly authoritative. search
 * oureconomy.org -- offshoot of recession.org
 * blackcrayon.com -- looks to be self-publshed
 * synapse9.com search
 * basiceconomics.info search
 * brandingstrategyinsider.com search
 * www.naturalmoney.org search
 * www.shadowstats.com search
 * www.nowandfutures.com search
 * www.skew-lognormal-cascade-distribution.org
 * Krugman's blog versus his columns or scholarly writings. search
 * shadow government statistics search
 * econphd.net search
 * maynardkeynes.org Good name, but who does it? search
 * thomaswhite.com Not sure if it's a RS, and if it is, whether it's being used appropriately. search
 * brandingstrategyinsider.com search
 * Rodger Mitchell blog search also search
 * Intellecutal Takeout, looks like it links elsewhere and that those direct links should be used instead. search
 * Spammishness for Heritage Auctions, ,
 * Spammishness for Abinomics,
 * Sigmadewe?
 * E-M-H (efficient market hypothesis)

Economics Web Institute

 * economicswebinstitute.org.

IP Editor writes: It has been considered as reliable source in a study by the Policy Department of European Parliament, by a peer-reviewed article in Technovation, Volume 29, Issue 5, Pages 338-350, by the 2006 inaugural lecture of Ilorin University, by "Repères bibliographiques concernant l'évolution économique et social au Luxembourg à parti du début du 20e siècle and several other reliable third-party publications, some of which can be browsed through Google.


 * by the Policy Department of European Parliament used for Italy's GDP numbers
 * a peer-reviewed article in Technovation, Volume 29, Issue 5, Pages 338-350 references essay by Piana on ABM
 * 2006 inaugural lecture of Ilorin University Not sure, references article by Piana but not from economicswebinstutite
 * "Repères bibliographiques concernant l'évolution économique et social au Luxembourg à parti du début du 20e siècle can't judge this, not being able to read French

I'm still not sure where this leaves it as a reliable source. I would trust it for factual numbers such as GDP, but would rather go to a more primary source for such numbers. The rest it still seems needs to be judged on a case-by-case basis. Not sure about this, I haven't given this list much thought lately.


 * I should add that I'm skeptical of information on the site, seeing that this essay misrepresents standard consumer theory.
 * Is your choice completely independent from what others decide or what you have already at home?
 * Is your pocket empty when exiting? Do you exhaust always your budget?
 * Is what you chose "optimal" so that next time, given your unchanged income and the same prices, you'll choose exactly the same thing?
 * The answer to all of these questions would be (or could be) "No" in very standard consumer theory.

I removed several links which I felt were inappropriate. There's still a few links to the site which I find questionable, but I'm not eager to act on right now.