Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-08-23/Developed country

Where is the dispute?
Developed country

Who is involved?

 * User:Avionics1980,
 * User:Eliko.

What is the dispute?
In Developed country, the last chapter indicates a list of countries measured by quality of life index. The parties disagree about whether to base the list on Economist's Index (as was published here p. 4) - that's also called: EIU's index, or on Newsweek's Index.

The problem is: which index is better for the article. User:Avionics1980 prefers this diff (based on 2005 Economist's index), because User:Avionics1980 thinks that Newsweek's index is flawed, while User:Eliko prefers this diff (based on 2010 Newsweek's index), because User:Eliko thinks that: both indices are of high quality, and that: an old (qualitative) index (of 2005) shouldn't be used in Wikipedia when an updated (qualitative) index (of 2010) is available.

What would you like to change about this?
I'm looking for an instrument for resolving the dispute, so that we all know which index (of the two mentioned above) should be preferred, in the last chapter of the article Developed country.

How do you think we can help?
For example, you can give your opinion about the parties' assumptions: Is Economist's index better than Newsweek's index, as User:Avionics1980 thinks? Should Wikipedia prefer an updated (qualitative) index to an older (qualitative) one, as User:Eliko thinks? If the mediator can't decide, then they can also recommend whether the dispute should be addressed to a more authoritative body in Wikipedia for a more clear cut resolution.

Mediator notes
There really is no easy way out of this dispute, both Indices are of a good quality, but neither party seems to agree with the other on which one is most suitable for the article. I strongly suggest that a new (and reliable) index be found and used.  Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм &#124;  Tea and biscuits?  03:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion
As to the mediator's note:
 * neither party seems to agree with the other on which one is most suitable for the article. Correct, as User:Eliko has indicated above, in the chapter "What is the dispute".
 * both Indices are of a good quality. Oh, that's exactly what User:Eliko thinks, as indicated above, in the chapter "What is the dispute". How about User:Eliko's claim that an old (qualitative) index (of 2005) shouldn't be used in Wikipedia when an updated (qualitative) index (of 2010) is available?
 * I strongly suggest that a new (and reliable) index be found and used. Oh, that could be an excellent idea, once such a new (and reliable) index has been found. Unfortunately, no such a new (and reliable) index has been found, and the dispute is about the indices that have already been found.
 * Eliko (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Response to the above:
 * I've found some good indices like the one Mercer provides, however, they only list cities and since the dispute involves countries by QLI listing said indices are largely useless.
 * I agree that an old (qualitative) index shouldn't be used when a newer/updated (qualitative) index is available, my issue is if there is any bias present in Newsweek's index.
 * In regards as to whether Newsweek's or the EIU's index should be used, I support the use of Newsweek's index.
 *  Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм &#124;  Tea and biscuits?  21:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for giving us your opinion. Eliko (talk) 22:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You're welcome, what direction is the dispute now headed in and is any further action required?  Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм &#124;  Tea and biscuits?  08:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No disruptive editing on article since mediation requested. Everything seems fine at the moment.
 * No further action is required. The case can be closed.
 * Eliko (talk) 09:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Done.
 *  Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм &#124;  Tea and biscuits?  08:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)