Here I'm trying to keep track of thoughts on what is/isn't a reliable source, hopefully linking to relevant discussions.
Wikipedia: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 [1] at [2] 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 -- [3] finds (brief mention), (slightly helpful), Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_2#Counterpunch (mostly not RS), (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 -- [4] 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, [5], [6]
- Spammishness for Abinomics, [7]
- Sigmadewe? [8]
- E-M-H (efficient market hypothesis) [9]
Economics Web Institute edit
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.