Talk:Calculators

I replaced the "capitalism vs communism"ish dichtonomy with a neutral and NPOV reference to taxes and allowing private property. This is after all what is being measured, not wheter the user has chosen a red flag and a Marx quote for his slogan. -- |Knoot|KNOOtalk 18:16, 3 Dec 2004 (GMT)

I also removed the blatantly NPOV reference to "heavy capitalist bias". Any mention of capitalist bias is unacceptable, IMO and I will not play along with the wearing-out tactics of Constantinopolis. [] -- |Knoot|KNOOtalk 18:19, 3 Dec 2004 (GMT)

Oh my, how very friendly we're feeling today! Knoot[oss,] I wasn't aware that you owned the wiki, though, or that you were the sole judge and jury of what is or isn't "acceptable". If capitalist bias exists, then I sure as hell am going to mention it. And I have plenty of evidence to back up my assertion. Sunset's calculator is heavily biased in favour of capitalist economies. Take a look at the following statistics I've compiled for various socialist, anarchist or otherwise non-capitalist nations:

No capitalist bias my ass. -- Constantinopolis 14:07, 4 Dec 2004 (GMT)

All you've showed is that Sunset's per-capita incomes are lower overall at this point. There are no examples of capitalist nations. There is no comparison of tax rates, government spending structure, or any other relevant info. Looking at a single value in isolation doesn't prove capitalist bias, only the fact that they are different. I'm removing the clearly POV "Heavy capitalist bias" line. The text of the article says there are different biases and that's enough without getting into a political edit war. Feel free to invite Sunset to explain his formulas or find some accurate way to prove your opinion, but until then leave it be. → Fris Θtalk 14:26, 4 Dec 2004 (GMT)

Do we really have to do this the hard way? You know as well as I do that I am right. Per-capita incomes are certainly not lower overall in Sunset's calculator. When it comes to capitalist nations, they are almost identical to those given by Commerce Heights:

All the above nations have massive private sectors, no income taxes, and belong to one of the capitalist UN categories (as opposed to the nations in my previous table, which had massive public sectors, high income taxes, and belonged to one of the socialist UN categories).

I'd say the proof is rather undeniable at this point, but if you want more, I'll be happy to provide it. Just tell me what exactly you need in order to be convinced of Sunset's bias. -- Constantinopolis 14:57, 4 Dec 2004 (GMT)

There is only one "unbiased" source, and that is the NationStates XML feed. Anything else will be an interpretation. Commerce Heights' NSEconomy is also unofficial.

Do per-capita values come before or after tax is subtracted? Perhaps Commerce Heights does a "before" and Sunset does it "after". You've showed me that per cap values are different based on some variable, but you haven't told me which variable you think Sunset is using, nor answered the "why" of the formula. As I said previously, you can't build a proof around a single isolated value. Unless you have access to Sunset's formulas (Commerce Heights has posted his, but I don't think Sunset has), it's a guess at best.

If Sunset takes the NS XML figures, and arbitrarily removes 50% of GDP based on UN categories, I'd agree with the concept of bias. But if it's just the way he factors per-capita income, I'm going to have to go with the text of the article which states that there are different interpretations. → Fris Θtalk 16:12, 4 Dec 2004 (GMT)

It should be absolutely pointed out that not only does the article contain a disclaimer of sorts but so does the calculator and it's own text should be included in this discussion:

This calculator should be considered experimental. Like all calculators it is a tool and is in no way authoritative. Like any other tool of this nature it carries some of the bias of its creator.

I will gladly and freely admit to being biased in a capitalist direction as far as my own calculator is concerned. This is the major point and why this discussion should never have occured. Not only do I specifically mention that it is experimental but I also mention that it is inherently biased. While I have tried to moderate that bias I will not modify my calculator because of it's placement on the wiki. It is the same as any other calculator as well as any other picture, outside web page, or similar created work - they all carry the bias of their creator in some form whether intentional or not. Putting a NPOV discussion in the wiki based on the content of an outside privately owned source would essentially mean that any outside linked source should have the same discussion linked. Given that the wiki does not have any control over outside content, nor should it, and that people are free to write what they want on their own pages this discussion should not have occurred and a very simple edit should have occured instead:

It should be noted that this data is usually biased in some way - sometimes intentional and sometimes not. - Sunset

Sunset's explanation and minor alterations to the article text have, in my opinion, taken this article to a NPOV status. I agree with his interpretation about labelling the link in question as "experimental" as well as his site disclaimers, and see no need for further edits on this topic. If everyone agrees, I recommend the NPOV tag be removed. → Fris Θtalk 23:07, 4 Dec 2004 (GMT)

I mostly agree; my intention was to ensure that a disclaimer existed somewhere, and, if possible, to convey the message that the Commerce Heights calculator is closest to neutrality (if a bias exists in that calculator, it is certainly very small, since nations with good GDP's cover the full range of economic systems). Perhaps that should be mentioned in the article, or perhaps we should post Sunset's own disclaimer regarding his calculator. -- Constantinopolis 14:22, 5 Dec 2004 (GMT)

Perhaps that should be mentioned in the article

The fact that there are biases IS mentioned in the article. As to how that bias manifests is up to the reader to discover. Your apparent need to label something as 'biased', when you don't agree with it, is not a compelling argument. → Fris Θtalk 15:11, 5 Dec 2004 (GMT)

"If you link to another website, you should give your reader a good summary of the site's contents, and the reasons why this specific website is relevant to the article in question. [...]relationships may also be interesting." from: Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Standard_appendices

Why not add description to the links (which seems a primordial aspect, due to the nature of the article, considering that it focuses solely on them, here is an example of a way it could be done.

• Sunset's experimental calculator (NSeconomy based).This calculator was created by User:Sunset, an comes to values regarding economy of any nation in Nationstate based upon the data given in the game. I does not have regional statistics, however, has information on the economic grey sector, Worker Enthusiasm,Population Growth Rate, Nation Age,Literacy,National Loyalty and other aspects not featured in the other calculators

Rechze • (talk) 07:18, 19 Dec 2004 (GMT)

Don't mind me... just deleting some asshole's ad...

...on the talk page o_O

I'm going to remove the NPOV as it appears the problem is solved and it's annoying to have it there. ~Sunset

Ack!

Now there's a nation named "calculators" that put its info on this page. Which article gets priority? → Ceo \ squawk 13:23, 31 January 2006 (GMT)

I moved the nation to Calculators (nation) and created a disambig page. I gave the statistics calculator priority because it's the most linked, and it's not going to be easy redirecting every link to "Calculators" to "Calculators (utility)" or whatever it becomese. LA Ice 02:35, 18 February 2006 (GMT)

NSTracker offline

NSTracker seems to be offline. I this durable? If yes, I'll remove the link --Secretary Blubb 10:49, 16 June 2007 (GMT)