Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-02-24 List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita

Who are the involved parties?
Eliko, CieloEstrallado

What's going on?
dispute over the current version of the article List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita.

What would you like to change about that?

 * 1) I (Eliko) hold that the previous version (followed by the current protected version) should be preferred, while CieloEstrallado holds that the current version should be preferred.

Mediator notes
If the parties are willing to allow me to be a mediator, I will become involved. This is my second case, but as of yet, the first is still currently open and therefore I am still open to mistakes. If you have any suggestions for improvements that I could make, I'd be quite grateful. Regards, Rudget . 16:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. However, maybe the other party is still not aware of the very existence of this mediation case. Are you going to invite him? Eliko (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Rudget . 18:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Are there any other involved parties not listed above? Rudget . 18:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No. Eliko (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * - I'll be absent from this case over the next few days, but I will be involving myself after Tuesday. If you have any other questions or diffs to provide please send them by e-mail where I can be contacted faster. Rudget . 21:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. Eliko (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am available once again. Apologies for the lengthy duration of this case so far. To help this process speed along a little, I'd appreciate that (in addition to) the two parties involved both wrote their accounts of the events below in the respective threads. By providing diffs and reviewing discussion that has been conducted, I will be better able to perform my position as mediator. Regards, Rudget . 17:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * See my comments below. Anyways, The task for which I've opened this mediation case - is: reaching a version which will be accepted by both parties. No "events". Eliko (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm putting this case onto hold, because of the pending result of a checkuser case which has been filed on the basis of the SSP case which was posted prior to this submission. Rudget  (?) 18:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Memorandum:
 * The current MEDCAB case is not about individuals, but rather about an article, i.e. about the more correct version which should be used by Wikipedia. To sum up: no connection between The current MEDCAB case (dealing with an article) and the other case (dealing with individuals).
 * I've agreed to accept your being an mediator, while the other party has not agreed yet.
 * Please tell me if you are still willing to be a mediator for choosing the more correct version for Wikipedia, i.e. regardless of external events dealing with individuals.
 * If you think that you can't be a mediator in this case (dealing with the article rather than with individuals) - then say that, and I'll respect that.
 * thank you in advance.
 * Eliko (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll defer this over to another mediator, because of my relative inexperience with this. Rudget . 13:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You have quitted, while leaving this page full of irrelevant talk (about your recess and about individuals etc.) - rather than about the relevant article, so I opened a new MEDCAB case.
 * Please change the status of this page. Eliko (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
Has already been held at both users' talk pages, and later (according to an administrator's suggestion): on a special talk page - yielding no results.

Currently, there exist three disputed issues. Here is a summary only (through my own glasses) - which is intended to reflect mainly my position - by referring to CieloEstrallado's position; CieloEstrallado is invited to add his comments.

CIA footnote
I (Eliko) add the footnote in the CIA section, i.e. footnote number 4 in my version (and by the way I hold that a respective footnote should be added also to the Penn. section), while CieloEstrallado holds: "that's enough" without the footnote, and: "it is not necessary to add a special footnote for it", because one: "can CLEARLY see the years on the table itself", and because: "we should avoid repetition at Wikipedia at all costs". However, I (Eliko) don't see any repetition: In my opinion, this footnote makes the information clearer, since it summerizes within 2 lines only - some important information which is not easy to extract from the table! I also hold that if anyone thinks that any piece of information is needless - then one can avoid reading it, but one shouldn't prevent others from reading it. Let me give an example: I think that Penn. list is totally needless, since it provides old information, so why haven't I deleted that list so far? because I said to myself: "If I don't think it's important - I can simply avoid reading it, but I shouldn't prevent others from reading it". Eliko (talk) 20:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

IMF year column
I (Eliko) add the third column in the IMF list, while CieloEstrallado holds that it's "not necessary" and calls my adding the third column: "asymmetry of information". However, I (Eliko) hold that if it were "Asymmetry of information" then we should have removed also the third columns from CIA list and from Penn. list, because we should avoid "Asymmetry of information"! I also hold that if anyone thinks that a piece of information (included in the third column of IMF list) is needless (or "asymmetric") - then one can avoid reading it, but one shouldn't prevent others from reading it. Let me give an example: I think (like the other editors) that Penn. list is totally needless, since it provides old information, so why haven't I deleted that list so far? because I said to myself: "If I don't think it's important - I can simply avoid reading it, but I shouldn't prevent others from reading it". Eliko (talk) 20:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

IMF year
I (Eliko) hold that the values which the IMF list (in the article) should present - are the values for 2006 - rather than the values for 2007, because I hold that the lists should reflect givens - rather than projections (i.e. extrapolation - from a previous period - to a later period). The reasoning behind my position - is: avoiding incosistency; Really, in my opinion, CieloEstrallado's version (which presents IMF projections for 2007 - rather than IMF givens for 2006 or IMF projections for 2008) involves an incosistency reflected by a very simple question: Why aren't values for 2008 relevant for this article while values for 2007 are? Note that my criteria are consistent: to publicize - as soon as possible without hiding anything - the most updated givens (i.e. excluding projections), but I can't notice CieloEstrallado's criteria (for discriminating now between 2007 values and 2008 values) - when he has clearly stated: "No one has the intention to hide anything". Eliko (talk) 20:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

A note (for CieloEstrallado): The current CIA values are not projections (i.e. extrapolation - from a previous period - to a later period), and I've already proved that (indirectly): Really, Andorra's case (for example) - refutes any opinion stating that CIA values are projections rather than givens: if such an opinion had been correct, and (e.g.) Andorra's final value (which is currently for 2005) could have been allowed to be a projection only (rather than a given) - i.e. could have been allowed to be based on givens which belong to years before the year for which the final value is - then a very simple question would have arisen: Why does CIA keep the old projection (for 2005)? Why isn't the old CIA projection updated for 2006, and for 2007, and for 2008? This is the indirect proof refuting the position which states that CIA values are projection rather than givens! Eliko (talk) 20:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Eliko
Eliko (talk) 18:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The task for which I've opened this mediation case - is: reaching a version which will be accepted by both parties.
 * This is Eliko's preferred version.
 * This is CieloEstrallado's preferred version, which is identical to the current protected version.
 * here - both parties were holding their discussions, which unfortunately have yielded no results.
 * The difference between the two versions regards three disputed issues - summarized above (See: "Issues in dispute").
 * If anything is still unclear - the mediator is invited to ask, and I promise to answer.