Talk:Social Choice and Individual Values

Talk:Social Choice and Individual Values

For the time it is hoped that this page might elicit comment (+ or -) on a new article Social Choice and Individual Values as to readability and content. Input can take the form of editing one or more of the following:

1. Social Choice and Individual Values
2. after Your Turn below
3. direct Wiki communication with those participating in (1) or (2)

The article is intended to be a reader's guide to the book with:

• all sections intended to be accurate, clear, focussed, and interesting
• the lead written in a general style
• the Introduction to suggest where the book is coming from
• the next 2 sections to be substantive and
• the final section to be more general but drawing on preceding sections.

If it succeeds, the article may not only inform but entice.

There may be tradeoffs as to accuracy, clarity, and conciseness. Esp. welcome are suggested alternatives that may improve the balance or reduce the tradeoffs. (Omitted were 'nonimposition' and 'monotocity', for which Pareto is a stronger condition anyhow.)

[Square brackets] in the article indicate a pedagogical elaboration or interpretive insertion. If any square brackets, or contents thereof, seem unwarranted, that too would be useful to have comments on.

My thanks.

Thomasmeeks 16:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Future plans: After probably at least a couple weeks of comment, the plan is to solicit Wiki "Peer Review" to determine how it is reads for a more general audience. After that, links could be made in related articles. Seems like a lot, but this book warrants it. There is overlap with Arrow's impossibility theorem and other cited articles, but the intent is to complement and supplement.

P.P.S. Thx for the edit help, JQ. Lookin' good. And earlier thx to Lincher,MCB, and Hetar.

Your Turn

This is a neat idea. I'll do an edit as soon as I get time.

Thanks also for updating the JEL codes page. I hope you found the classification useful. JQ 23:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Muchas gracias, JQ, for excellent edits, the Example, and helpful suggestions (see his discussion tab for some details).

Thomasmeeks 03:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Need help on the Range voting page with Arrow interpretation

Hi folks...I'm hoping to get a hand from folks who edit this page over at the Range voting article. There are some editors there that appear determined to exempt range voting from Arrow's theorem by claiming it doesn't apply.

Here's the text from the range voting article:

As it satisfies the criteria of a deterministic voting system, with non-imposition, non-dictatorship, monotonicity, and independence of irrelevant alternatives, it may appear that Arrow's impossibility theorem fails for it. The reason that range voting is not regarded as a counter-example to Arrow's theorem is that it is a cardinal voting system, while Arrow's theorem is restricted to the processing of ordinal preferences; two different sets of range votes may express the same individual ordinal preferences but lead to different overall rankings, so range voting could be said to fail Arrow's criterion of universality as applied to ranked preferences.

I clearly haven't been elequent enough in my objection to this, so I'm hoping there's someone here who can set the record straight. -- RobLa 16:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you're on the right track, RobLa. First, the burden is not on you. Let whoever asserts otherwise document the source. Second, Arrow (1983, p. 173) does refer to Kalai & Schmeidler's Econometrica article "Aggregation procedures for cardinal preferences: a refomulation and proof of Samuelson's impossibility conjecture" (1977, 45, 1431-8).

BW, Thomasmeeks 12:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers, Thomas. This is a classic lack of citation problem, which illustrates why its important to cite sources. -- RobLa 18:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

T indexing ties?

I'm new to this so maybe I'm just missing the obvious, but it isn't clear to me what is meant by 'T' indexes ties. It is clear that you are using to to indicate a tie of some kind, but not where the tie exists. I assume that when you write { x y T z } you mean that x is ranked first and y & z are tied for second. This is supported by the existence of { x T y z} (x & y tied for first, and z in third place). However I really shouldn't have to deduce your meaning in an encyclopedia entry. Later you use the '|' symbol to indicate ties...why mix symbology? Speed8ump 02:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. Yes, that's the intended interpretation. Would:

'T' indicates pairwise ties

be clearer? If so, you (or I) could make the change. Or you might have a better way of clarifying. (If I had had any thought (doubtful), it might be that the 'T' & later 'I' at least have the advantage of ready-made mnemonics (tie and indifference). Thx. BW, Thomasmeeks 03:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

"deploys"?

"...which he deploys." Is this intended, or should it have been "deplores"? If "deploys", what does this mean? --Jlundell 04:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The intended use is found at Definition 2 of http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/deploy. --Thomasmeeks —Preceding comment was added at 11:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Social Choice and Individual Values. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://google.com/scholar?q=cache%3AuoJ0KiOk-UwJ%3Ascholar.google.com%2F&hl=en&as_sdt=80000000000000
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070505125314/http://cowles.econ.yale.edu/P/cm/m12-2/index.htm to http://cowles.econ.yale.edu/P/cm/m12-2/index.htm

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) 00:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)