Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-03-09 List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita

Request details

 * My requset regards the article List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita.
 * I want to reach a concensus on the current version of the article. For more details - see below.

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. The current version reflects, unilaterally, the other party's position.

What would you like to change about that?

 * 1) I (Eliko) hold that footnote no. 4 should be added in the CIA section - as it was added in a previous version, while CieloEstrallado rejects my proposal. See discussion below.
 * 2) I (Eliko) hold that a third column should be added to the IMF list - as it was added in a previous version, while CieloEstrallado rejects my proposal. See discussion below.
 * 3) I (Eliko) hold that the values which the IMF list (in the article) should present - are the values for 2006 - as they were presented in a previous version, while CieloEstrallado holds that they should be the values for 2007. See discussion below.

Mediator notes

 * If the parties are willing to allow me to be a mediator, I will become involved with this case. Waiting for approval of parties, please state if you approve:
 * : approve. Eliko (talk) 16:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

STORMTRACKER   94  Go Sox! 10:50, 14 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)


 * I don't want to seem as if I am taking sides, but Eliko's footnotes are more accurate than the current version.
 * Eliko's footnotes should be restored.
 * ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦  Talk  05:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I seem to agree with Economist also, the more explanation the better and more helpful it is to others. Red  Thunder  16:02, 18 May 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)

IMO the IMF year column is very important, some countries only measure their productive once every 10 year due to the cost of collecting that information, so this column would make reader aware that the information might be out dated despite IMF's efforts. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦  Talk  05:04, 13 May 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)


 * Agreed once again, the IMF list should reflect the consolidated numbers whenever possible and not projections or estimates.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦  Talk  05:07, 13 May 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) 22:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)