question from 71.56.201.199

umm, unfamiliar with the subject. indirect utility function defined differently than written. 'w' or 'I' and what does that mean? also is that a standard del operator? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.201.199 (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this page is really bad. i.e. w is not defined. regarding the del, that is the usual gradient. Hope that answers your questions. Pdbailey (talk) 01:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assment importantce

this article was just reassessed from High importance to Mid. I would argue that the demand function that is the basis for all welfare analysis is of the highest importance. Pdbailey (talk) 12:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reassessed this in accordance with the nascent importance criteria. While it may form the cornerstone of a vital part of microeconomics, I don't feel it will be of fundamental importance to lay people, and that it only provides specialist knowledge to the encyclopedia. I'm looking forward to having this discussion, and I think a good place to debate the criteria is WT:ECON. -FrankTobia (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FrankTobia, the example high importance article is Indifference curve, I'd say the Hicksian is pretty closely related topic. It is also (as the guide suggests), "taught at the undergraduate college level." Pdbailey (talk) 03:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that indifference curves are of High importance to WP:ECON, which is much of the reason that I think Hicksian demand functions are of Mid importance. They're not just closely related: indifference curves are a much more general topic, and much more widely useful, not just for microeconomists but for lay people who want to learn more about the field. Keep in mind that "importance" isn't some objective criterion; it's a tool to show relative importance to particular wikiprojects. -FrankTobia (talk) 18:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you disagree that Hicksian is taught at the college level? Pdbailey (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All I know is that I've gotten through around eight undergrad econ courses and haven't heard about it once. In either case, I think that the Mid importance criteria fit this subject better. I also created those importance criteria myself, and they're in the process of being vetted by the WP:ECON community. If you'd like to have a larger discussion I suggest bringing up this point on WT:ECON. -FrankTobia (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem more active in the Econ community. Can you ask for feedback on the Hicksian as an example as a way to refine the rules. I think it is a good example to use. Pdbailey (talk) 02:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah no problem, I've been waiting for just such an example. I'll start up a discussion on WT:ECON and we'll try to build a consensus. I'd like very much if you discuss your viewpoint over there as well. -FrankTobia (talk) 06:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[unindent]Certainly seems like a mid-level importance thing. This certainly isn't emphasized at the undergrad level in the US, probably in part because undergrad economics is not heavily quantitative. We studied the Hicks substitution effect in my micro theory class, but it only received a few pages. Incidentally, I like the assessment scheme; good work, Frank. Wikipedia is primarily written for lay readers. Economists get their information elsewhere, and we should not categorize articles mainly useful for economists as high-importance. II | (t - c) 21:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to agree that it's a mid or maybe a low. The function is probably only known by specialized economists. When I assess articles, I use the following criteria: Top is used for article that all people should have a basic knowledge of. High is for articles that high school or undergrad students who are taking the subject might learn about. Mid is for people who have a degree in the subject. Low is for people who have devoted their entire life to the subject. In my case, I don't remember being taught this subject in university. I did however learn about John Hicks. --Patrick (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious the problem is we have only one axis, when we could use two: importance for layfolk and importance for pros. This is an essential item for a pro. I don't think it's necessary for a layperson. So, based on the criteria, Mid makes sense. (On the other hand, based on those criteria I'd also downgrade indifference curve, but that's probably just my anti-foundations bias.) My experience with Hicksian demand was very sharp--not seeing it as an undergrad (where I admittedly had spotty courses and could have bypassed it), failing if you don't grok it in the first year of grad school. Cretog8 (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Frank's assessment model makes sense. In areas like these, it is more difficult to assess as you often lose the geographical impact factor (global, country, local), but this might be something to consider. I think normally you have global impact with lay reader interest as top priority (or the top economic article for a English speaking country), then you get into important global topic or high level country article with base interest, then you get into notable global topics, mid level country articles with academic interest, than finally specific interest within a country. You don't want to weight the top end too heavy as this is what is going to be the basis in some cases for improvement drives. Something like under 25 Top priority, under 100 High priority, etc. Morphh ^(talk) 14:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that, economics-oriented, I find it tempting to give the project some kind of "budget" of each importance level, and then have to decide on tradeoffs. Tempting, but probably not worthwhile for real. CRETOG8(t/c) 15:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, that sounds kind of awesome to me. I wanted to get the assessment train sailing before bringing up such a point, but now here it is. Choosing some arbitrary number as a cap for Top and High is a good way to make sure those categories stay on track. If I personally had to draw a line in the sand right now, I'd make it 30 Top and 150 High (that's looking at today's numbers). We can bring this discussion to WT:ECON/A if it gets any traction (otherwise I'll bring it there eventually). -FrankTobia (talk) 18:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started a thread at the assessment talk since if we're going to actually have this conversation, it shouldn't be hidden here. CRETOG8(t/c) 20:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, maybe this wasn't a great example if none of you have heard of the Hicksian. It also suggests ways that this article might be expanded. i.e. why consumer surplus can not be accurately calculated with the Marshalian demand function. Pdbailey (talk) 23:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compensated Demand in Practice

What is the practical use of Hicksian demand function? Why do we compensate income to study the preference of goods? Are we trying to ignore income elasticity and focus only on price elasticity of demand? If so, how relevant is this approach with all firms, organizations, governments, individuals talking daily about budgets? I'm raising these question not as an economist, but as a normal person who suffers from daily routines, just like everyone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MinosHT (talk • contribs) 03:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

= not at a general level

the intro is not at the level needed for a general encylopeida; almost insulting so it is written for someone who has at least a solid 1 year college course in econ most of the econ articles seem to be like, really badly written shame on the authors for spending hours on hard to read math notatation but not taking 20 minutes to put the intro into english — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:192:4700:1F70:D889:4C2C:9221:FFC7 (talk) 02:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]