Talk:Words of estimative probability

Working on Wikifying and inline references

Is Schrage 2003 a typo? I see a single reference, but no 2003 data.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 04:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Some general guidance on citations

Use authorlink only when there is a Wikipedia article on the author.

If you happen to look at this text in edit mode, nowiki suppresses the Wiki software from processing the directive or template; you don't want to include it in your citations or they won't work.

References should be inline whenever possible. When you first create the inline reference, use <ref name=XXX>..., XXX will be the identifier for the reference; you need to put in quotes if and only if it nas embedded spaces. Use <ref name=xxx /> to refer, subsequently, to the same reference; the space before the final slash is important. Unfortunately, I don't know of any way to just vary the page reference with subsequent citations; I create new inline references with new identifiers.

You don't need to have the same item as a reference and as a "see also".

Wikilinks just need the article name in double brackets.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 04:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Questionable overemphasis on Mercyhurst

Note that Sherman Kent is not mentioned in a section header. The University of Tennessee is not mentioned in a section header. The National Intelligence Council is not mentioned in a section header.

Yet Mercyhurst, which is not especially notable in the wide world of intelligence, gets mention at the section header level and with a long name in the lead of a sentence.

Sorry, but I see a pattern of Mercyhurst WP:UNDUE at best and WP:ADVERT closer to the point, in this and in other articles. There is a procedure by which instructors using Wikipedia as an assignment announces they are doing so, but I don't see any mention of Mercyhurst on that page. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 00:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see the subsection title made more generic. I didn't want to make it sound like the issue was being widely discussed. That fifteen minutes of fame can be pretty fleeting and I don't want to waste it. --Pat (talk) 01:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Howard,

Mercyhurst is notable in the small world of intelligence, it is a feeder school for the guys that drive the black helicopters, see MCIIS.

It's not just pipe-smoking Yalies in Langley, not everybody can take the top jobs, there have to be some people that fill out the rest of the pack.

Thanks,

Erxnmedia (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Ummm...I understand what their page says. I also know where courses were being given in 1967.Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Give em a break, what's wrong with a little self-promotion? Anyway I don't see the Yalies jumping in to edit these pages. I think it would be great if we could get the Mercyhurst kids to fill out the CIA in Country X histories. Erxnmedia (talk) 18:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe because I was taking strategic intelligence at American University in 1967?

Seriously, I would be delighted to get such a cooperation. There have been several articles dealing with intelligence analysis tradecraft that I learned were Mercyhurst assignments, with relatively little interest, apparently, in working with anything existing. As you may know, there is a Wikipedia procedure for constructive involvement for class assignments. I sent an email of concern to one of the department heads, got a nice note back, and was told he'd forward it to the appropriate professor. In one of the articles in question, the only content was either Mercyhurst or Mercyhurst reading material, and, when I suggested there might be more to the subject, essentially got a brushoff from the author. With about an hour of work, I came up with a half-dozen peer-reviewed citations on the subject, and, in particular, ones that used quantitative, expert system, or visualization methods not otherwise mentioned. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 19:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess the Mercyhurst crew thinks Wikipedia is some kind of toy.

Maybe you can get in touch with your old school and get their students signed up for Military History/Intel project list.

Thanks,

Erxnmedia (talk) 20:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If articles need internal links, feel free to add them, Howard. If they need editing, feel free to edit them. Wikipedia is a collaborative process, so such additions and changes are welcome. But I don't think you're talking about that. I think we need to flesh out exactly what you mean by your complaints that some editors are ignoring "anything existing." I know you have put a great deal of effort into a compendium of interlaced articles on intelligence. I think that infrastructure can be a bit stifling to those who might wish to add content to Wikipedia on intelligence issues. Are you suggesting that people cooperate with you and fit their content into your articles when considering adding new materials? That could work if the articles were sufficiently encyclopedic and not so all-encompassing. Graduate students in their mid-twenties with individual Wikipedia accounts aren't young teenagers on a field trip who need to be managed. They can handle themselves properly in the Wiki world, even if they don't do what you want. --Pat (talk) 23:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually before I was in my twenties, as I had a very valuable research writing course when I was about 14, one of the first things I learned is to find out what existing literature existed on a subject before going off on my own. Given that there is an Intelligence Task Force in the Military History Project, and given that such things as "analysis of competing hypotheses" would have returned hits in a Wikipedia search, I can't help but wonder why, other than there might have been a class assignment to write an article on that subject (among others), the article appeared with no Wikilinks to any existing work. If the existing articles are too detailed, there are opportunities to ask for clarification on the article talk page or the task force page.

When I offered specific constructive criticism that there was more work in the field of analysis of competing hypotheses than one paper by Mercyhurst people, and, in particular, there was work on involving formal logic, visualization, and statistical inference, the editor(s) involved did not seem to respond in a terribly interested way. Indeed, one said ACH was not quantitative or statistical, and I agree that the original work in the 1970s was not.

I had not put some of the other work into any existing article, that being on my sometime-to-do list, but, within an hour or two, I had a reasonable number of peer-reviewed formal improvements on Heuer's original ACH work. They involved methods from Bayesian analysis to data visualization/mining to formal logical notation. Eventually, I edited these into the article, and was surprised to get no response. Even a "you're wrong because XXX" would have been welcome, which seemed only fair since someone had said that ACH did not use such methods.

A lack of interaction is not what I see as useful participation in Wikipedia. Tell me I'm wrong, tell me that there was a classroom assignment and what I was adding is beyond its scope, or explain the problems with some of the models--any would have been fine. Some of these methods, incidentally, are widely used in medical decisionmaking.

So, what I see so far, and it's not the first case I've seen on Wikipedia, is a class assignment mostly intended to demonstrate that someone can format a Wiki page. You may want to search Wikipedia about class assignments and reaction to them; this isn't the first case. Both on Wikipedia and Citizendium, there are opportunities to register class assignments and keep some level of instructional control.

Shall I apologize that what I have done is so all-encompassing, even though I know damn well how much it does not address? From personal experience, success as an intelligence analyst tends to require that one is not easily intimidated and can defend one's hypotheses.

As far as "handle themselves properly in the Wiki world", would not a comment on a talk page been appropriate? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 00:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedians contribute what they can when they create articles or add to existing articles. The idea that someone cannot start an article on a new topic without including all research materials that might be found is a concept I'm unfamiliar with. My impression of Wikipedia is different. I am dealing with you here because this is where you chose to challenge Mercyhurst's right to contribute new articles to Wikipedia. This is where you suggested that Mercyhurst was conducting an unauthorized classroom exercise that needed monitoring by Wiki. Neither of these is true. Please feel free to edit articles as you see fit. Make internal links where necessary. Add content and conflicting points of view. That is the collaborative process of Wiki. No one owns the content once it is up there. Coordination on entries happens now and then and can be very rewarding, but it has not been the rule in my experience when contributing a new article. Enjoy your Wiki experience. --Pat (talk) 04:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You are right. My experience is different, especially on controversial subjects. The best results come from preliminary discussion on talk pages. Bold-revert-edit works when people are contributing new material, but not as well when people put in stubby articles.

Given, however, I am in direct communications with Mercyhurst faculty on the issue, I don't think it's useful to discuss it here, unless you are either a faculty member or student in the program and have first-hand understanding of what has been said.

I suggest you also reread what I also said, or did not say, about "unauthorized classroom experiments" (there is, incidentally, policy and commentary on such), and where I said "monitoring by Wiki" was needed. I have added new material to this and other apparent Mercyhurst-oriented articles. It did not lead to exchange of views, which I consider the essence of the collaborative process. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 06:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I have first-hand knowledge. I'll check into the WikiProject Classroom coordination program and see what's what. I searched for "unauthorized classroom experiments" and found nothing. WikiProject Classroom coordination says nothing about being mandatory, nor does it suggest "monitoring by Wiki," but I've inquired in that regard to get clarification. The WikiProject approach does sound interesting, however, and it could be useful for both Wiki and the school in a number of important ways. Thanks for the suggestion. --Pat (talk) 06:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Words of estimative probability. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080419095942/http://ebusiness.mit.edu:80/schrage/ to http://ebusiness.mit.edu/schrage/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 25 May 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) EggRoll97 ^(talk) 03:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

---

Words of estimative probability → Verbal probability – Given that this has been here for a decade and a half now, I didn't want to move it unilaterally without giving people a chance to object beforehand, but verbal probability seems to be a much more concise way of defining the same topic, see for example a PLOS article. I don't think "words of estimative probability" is used that much more often in literature, for all that Kent used it in their 1962 work, from what I can see, it's actually the other way around, even though we do have some that use it like van Tiel et al.

Of course, most literature does seem to tack on "word" or "phrase" or "expression" or something else like that, but they also seem to drop it easily enough when concision is desired, so I don't think it's necessary for our title here. I suppose probability phrase is another plausible alternate title if we want to stick to proper grammar, and it does seem to see some use in RS as well, but it seems overall less common, which is why I've opted for "verbal probability" instead. Should probably be a redirect though!

References

Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: This can't be soft move. More participation. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Military history has been notified of this discussion. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. The current title seems more clear and more well attested with historical references. Several of the cited sources explicitly use the term formally and define it as an abbreviation, and the sources using the WEP term seem more historically significant to the topic. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.