Talk:Quantitative storytelling

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Science Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Saltean (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.

Dear User talk:MrOllie, In this page, as well as in the other pages you have visited last September, i.e. Sensitivity analysis , Sensitivity auditing, Sociology of quantification, Ethics of quantification, Post-normal science and others, your intervention could perhaps be improved. In the present page, the following pieces have been cut out:

QST encourages an effort in the pre-analytic, pre-quantitative phase of the analysis to map a socially robust (i.e. inclusive of the interest of different stakeholders) universe of possible frames. QST expands on one of the rules sensitivity auditing by asking the question of ‘what to do’ in order to avoid that an issue is framed unilaterally. Obviously, the medicine for a diseased evidence-based policy is not a prejudice- or superstition-based policy, but a more democratic and participatory access to the provision of evidence—even in terms of agenda setting. For this a new institutional setting is needed.[1] The proponents of QST[1] flag the affinity of this approach to others such as NUSAP and Sensitivity auditing.

Saltelli and Giampietro (2017)[1] suggest that our present approach to evidence-based policy, even in the more nuanced formulation of evidence-informed policy (Gluckman, 2014[2]), is often based on an arbitrary restriction of the definition of the problem, which is then reinforced by an effort of quantification - via models and/or indicators, of the selected frame.

Other applications of approaches which can be referred to QST are to the analyses for the cost of climate change,[3][4] to the controversy surrounding the OECD-PISA study[5][6]), to food security,[7][8] to the controversy surrounding the use of Golden Rice, a GMO crop,[9] and to the ecological footprint of the Ecological Footprint Network.[10][11]

Perhaps some of the text above could be properly streamlined and salvaged, without sacrificing non-COI references such as^[11][2]. Reference ^[1], 273 citations in Google Scholar, is the most quoted on the topic. I welcome your opinion on this comment. Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Saltean, I'm not here to weigh in on the paragraph's content itself (I know nothing about it) but I do have an opinion on style and tone. Obviously, the medicine for a diseased evidence-based policy (...)

It seems to me the adverb "obviously", and the "disease/medicine" metaphor, aren't really encyclopedic, and not really neutral.

• "Obviously" implies some form of preceding, self-evident knowledge. You can't assume anything is obvious to the reader, at least not in an encyclopedia article, which has to be as didactic as possible.
• The "disease/medicine" metaphor, when used to characterize a policy, doesn't sound neutral at all. Again, not encyclopedic.

Reading this as a layman (like I said, I'm not judging the content), this somewhat raises a red flag in my mind, makes me more inclined to consider the claims dubious (again, I'm not saying they are).

Anyway, not trying to nitpick here, but since you reckon the paragraph could use some streamlining/salvaging, I figured my tiny feedback could be useful. The article is an interesting read in any case! Castor Gravy (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and ... yes, you are right. The tone is not encyclopedic. Will try to do better if I edit the page again; for the moment I am worried of doing anything on the page that might be COI. The way I will proceed is see if

User:MrOllie replies and then proceed with caution. Thanks again! Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 07:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for taking COI concerns seriously. By 'proceed with caution' I assume you mean you won't write about yourself like this any more.

MrOllie (talk) 14:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Dear MrOllie

Thanks again for your input. In case you have not seen it yet this is my conflict resolution text opened as a result of your interventions; I will use red below for better readability. The case has been closed by User:Robert McClenon, see by Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_241; please see as well the talk page of User:Robert McClenon. From now on I am systematically using the Edit:COI and declaring my conflict at the beginning on any page.

Regards Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 11:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Sensitivity analysis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Saltean (talk · contribs)
• MrOllie (talk · contribs
  )

Dispute overview

This concerns a series of edit made last September 2023 by

User:MrOllie and relative to a several different pages, see User_talk:MrOllie#Your_edits_of_last_September

where all references to my own work have been removed.

My case is that in two particular two pages Sensitivity auditing and Sensitivity analysis my own references are instead needed. In one case the references eliminated correspond to the most quoted articles in the respective discipline of sensitivity analysis (see detailed list in Talk:Sensitivity analysis). In the other case I am simply the creator of the method, please see Talk:Sensitivity auditing.

I agree that COI needs to be avoided. I agree that I quoted excessively my own papers, lesson learned, and I can live with the elisions in the other pages. I ask no action there.

Now I can use the edit COI template to gently reinsert at least the essential references at the two pages mentioned, but would like to note that editors such as

User:MrOllie

should consider the possibility that some author is also right in his/her subject domain.

Since

User:MrOllie

is a seasoned editor (as I am a seasoned author) I doubt this complaint of mine will make any difference, but still, it pains me that we cannot work in Wikipedia in a spirit of cooperation instead of one of aggressive confrontation – though, let it be clear, I met scores of polite and collaborative editors in Wikipedia who corrected and still correct me constructively.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

See

Talk:Sensitivity analysis

Talk:Sensitivity auditing

User_talk:MrOllie#Your_edits_of_last_September

Talk:Quantitative storytelling

Talk:Ethics of quantification

User_talk:Saltean#Managing_a_conflict_of_interest

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Talking to

User:MrOllie

would be a good starting point.

Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 11:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change under the COI template

The user below has a request that an edit be made to Quantitative storytelling. That user has an the instructions for the parameters used by this template for accepting and declining them, and review the request below and make the edit if it is well sourced, neutral, and follows other Wikipedia guidelines and policies.

Based on the above discussion in the present talk page, here is my attempt to re-establish a useful reference using the edit COI template.

• Specific text to be added or removed: One reduced portion of text following the suggestion of User:Castor_Gravy.
• Reason for the change: Relevance of the proposed insertion to the page, see discussion in the present talk page.
• References supporting change: Scholar Google can be checked for the reference to 'What is wrong with evidence based policy, and how can it be improved?'; it has 280 citations at the time of writing. I also added a reference from a A. Stirling treating the subject of reductionism in framing.

−

+

QST encourages an effort in the pre-analytic, pre-quantitative phase of the analysis to map a socially robust (i.e. inclusive of the interest of different stakeholders) universe of possible frames. QST expands on one of the rules [[sensitivity auditing]] related to how an analysis is framed. The approach is meant to contrast possibly arbitrary restriction of the definition of the problem, which is then reinforced by an effort of quantification - via models and/or indicators that are pertinent to the selected frame.

In these proposed changes I have not suppressed text from other authors.Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 09:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC) Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 09:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

1. ISSN 0016-3287
   .
2. ISSN 0048-7333
   .