Jump to content

Talk:Global Economic Map

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki


Hi. Will this only store data like numbers, names, dates, etc., which can be used in any language? If so, maybe you should consider storing this information on Wikidata. πr2 (t • c) 01:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

This project will specialize in standardized economic research reports. I have designed the original format. This will allow for simplified data presentation of economic information. It will most resemble Wikispecies. The simplicity and focus on economics differentiates this project from wikidata. This project will begin with English but it is open to different languages.Mcnabber091 (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Can I suggest we rewrite this proposal so the data is stored on Wikidata and imported from Wikidata into information tables in the various wikipedias so that tables of information can be added to all 280 wikipedias and is available for reuse on any other website or spreadsheet anywhere on or off the web.
  1. Wikidata already has a page on each country.
  2. Wikidata already has a page on each administrative division of each of these countries.
  3. Wikidata already has a page on each of the larger companies and financial institutions.
  4. The Global Economic Map project will work with Wikidata to create bots to automatically import data from various databases into the various pages in Wikidata, including creating new Wikidata properties and items where required. Each datum will be a separate statement on wikidata with a source (where it came from) and a date (when it applies). Where automation is not practical the data will be imported by hand into Wikidata, including the source and date info.
  5. Wikidata will make this data, like all the data on Wikidata, available, through their public API, in various standard formats, so it can be reused by others.
  6. As part of Wikidata stage 3 (due this autumn) the Wikidata developers will work on creating queries and data visualisations using the data in Wikidata. The Global Economic Map team will work with the Wikidata stage 3 developers and one of the wikipedias (probably not the English Wikipedia - their articles are pretty stable so they don't want too much experimentation) to create example data visualisations using the data on typical national and regional wikipedia pages. Once these are stable they can be adapted to other nations and regions on that wikipedia. These can then be be used as a model by other wikipedias.
OK? Filceolaire (talk) 01:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Filceolaire: thank you. The last section on this talk page may be of interest; it appears to build down to a positive answer, it appears. Your feedback would be welcome at the relevant talk pages. Gryllida 23:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

More questions[edit]

Why does this need to be a sister project? Shouldn't this be part of the English Wikipedia WikiProject (or WikiProjects in other Wikipedias)? πr2 (t • c) 02:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

This project cannot go onto the English Wikipedia because the overhaul would be too large. There is already too much information to re-organize on the 'Economy of ________' pages. The re-organization would be messy and tedious. I think it would be better to start a new Wikimedia project. This would allow for simplicity and the optimal way to present economic information.Mcnabber091 (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
I was also wondering why this couldn't go on Wikipedia. Starting a new Wikimedia project (with the work required from tech staff etc) is significantly more work to set up and maintain than running this on the English Wikipedia. There isn't that much data here that warrants creating a new wiki, let alone another sister project in my opinion. Have you considered using the "outline" format that's use on the English Wikipedia for other things already? See w:en:Category:Outlines. Thehelpfulone 12:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
My response is in the following message.Mcnabber091 (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thehelpfulone, to re-iterate: updating economic data at Wikipedia would involve manual parsing. That's precisely why Wikidata exists. Gryllida 23:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Response to thehelpfulone[edit]

My model is incompatible with the English Wikipedia 'Economy of ____' articles because there is already a deep amount of unorganized information on these pages that would ruin my project. The contents of every 'Economy of ______' are all different. There is excess information on these pages that I would not want to include in my model. The entire value in my project is the simple standardized model. My standardized model allows for cross country (or cross locality) comparisons.
I believe my model does a very effective job of presenting economic data and the project is worthwhile. It's comparable to the Periodic Table in Chemistry because it also presents complex information in a standardized format. My goal is for other people to re-create the sample article for every country and locality in the world. The finished product would be a very educational tool. The world has never seen anything like this before.
There is not a lack of data and information for this project. This model can be applied to every single town, locality and state for every country. That's a lot of economic data if you know where to find it. My project, asks for volunteers to help locate that data and centralize it in a single place.
I looked on that link for outlines on regional economic data and there is not a standardized model. Thanks for the advice and critique of the project. It all helps.Mcnabber091 (talk) 14:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
We could just put it in a section called "Tables" of the "Economy of _______" pages. Or we could rename your versions "Summary of the Economy of ______", and link to it from "Economy of _____". πr2 (t • c) 03:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
This project aims to create a web of pages for every country and city. I think this web of information would be best presented in a separate Wikimedia project. Creating 'Summary of' pages to go inside of Wikipedia does not sound optimal because it would be a more complex way to present the information. A separate project would be necessary for the simplicity. It's similar to Wikispecies in this regard. Mcnabber091 (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Since this is structured information aimed to be distributed in a uniform way getting it to WikiData and publishing it in some way on the Wikipedias seems by far the most reasonable idea, dare I say, exactly what WikiData was meant to do? I really don't see how setting up a completely new project could in any way be any less work than re-structuring things, even if we think that it is a good idea to create a new project because it would require less work on pages created outside any project, which I for one don't. I also don't see how information that is already on Wikipedia could ruin this project. Fragmentation of information is not a good idea, and keeping this outside of WikiData means that if Wikipedia for example would like to incorporate this information (and I think they/we would), it would be much more cumbersome. Generally not a good idea IMO. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
See my comment on the first section above where I suggest how this project could be integrated into Wikidata.
Using a standard set of properties to describe the data will mean that visualisations can be created comparing different countries. This is in addition to the country by country data tables in the current proposal.
Using Wikidata also means that every time the data is updated we will have to import the new data into wikidata just once and it will then automagically get added to every wikipedia page using this data and to every other page using the data. Filceolaire (talk) 01:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
You're right. Updating economic data at Wikipedia would involve manual parsing. That's precisely why Wikidata exists. Gryllida 23:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Only 196 pages[edit]

Why do we need a separate wiki for 196 articles? PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

There would be more than 196 articles. There would be an article for each 'sub-division' of each country and every locality down to the city level. There would be also be standardized articles for every company.Mcnabber091 (talk) 07:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
But still the question why this cannot be done within Wikidata/Wikipedia... mabdul 05:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
I am willing to put this project on Wikipedia and I already tried: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economic_summary_of_the_United_States#Request_review_at_WP:AFC. All I want is for this project to be in a place where it can inspire other people to duplicate it for other countries. Any advice?
en:Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Economic summary of the United States, should be generated through Wikidata queries that will become available in a few months. It is a bit hard to start things now, as number datatypes are not yet available in Wikidata, but I do think that it would be much better to do it in Wikidata, as it will make things much less redundant, and much more flexible and usable. --Zolo (talk) 10:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Even considering subdivisions of states and main cities, I don't expect to have enough data to create a summary on each village. So the potential is about 40-60 thousands articles maximum. Is this enough for a new project ? I am not sure. And then with wikidata we have now a way to work with a database inside wikipedia. Better initiate a global project for all wikipedias but based on wikipedia article structure. I see 2 possibilities: a specific paragraph on each article or a subpage for each article. The english wikipedia already used this solution to store data about chemicals (en:Chloromethane and its subpage en:Chloromethane_(data_page). The second solution is the best one I think and can keep on data about one topic in the same place without creating a very long article with a lot of tables or graphics. We see that Wikispecies can be replaced by wikidata and a specific template in wikipedia, so I prefer to avoid to split data among different projects. Snipre (talk) 11:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

What about Wikiversity or Wikibooks?[edit]

Have you thought about putting the information onto Wikiversity or Wikibooks? -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 21:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Or if it is a collection of articles for the layperson it could go to simple:.--Micru (talk) 03:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
The Simple English Wikipedia is not a place for short articles. The only difference between its content and enwiki's (in theory) is that the Simple English content is written using more basic vocabulary. Practically, Simple English articles are usually shorter. But that is not the purpose of simplewiki. It's for Basic English content, not just for summaries of English Wikipedia articles. PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Updating economic data at Wikipedia would involve manual parsing. That's precisely why Wikidata exists. Gryllida 23:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Worst idea ever[edit]

You know what can be worst idea for this project? Wikia... (see Wikiafication for more info, though is completely unrelated) But seriously, I support this project, it can be something like species: --ebraminiotalk 09:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Reply


I propose to create a Wikidata task force first to define the structure of the data to save in wikidata and to pilot there the global project. Then on each wikipedia we can have a small project used to explain the goal and how the global project is working. The main difficulties are to be able to have hte same structure for the data display (paragraph or subpage) on all wikipedias and to keep the management of the data display inside the global project.

The best solution is to work on a prototype page and to develop the page framework and the lua templates there and once we have a solution we go and present the concept on each wikipedia. Snipre (talk) 12:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Top ten?[edit]

Where the proposal has a "top ten" of various things, I think it would be useful to also include anything over a given size even if it is not in the "top ten". For example, all of the major economies include corporations of global reach that are not in their respective top ten nationally. Also, I'm not sure revenue should be the only criterion for deciding which are the biggest corporations, nor that corporations are always the relevant economic entities (consider the military in China). Number of employees seems also highly relevant, and possibly other criteria such as profits (where that can be determined).

I suspect similar comments might apply to other proposed data.

That said, I think this is a fine idea, and what is listed is a fine start, but I'd want to see it conceived as open-ended in terms of additional possible data sets. - Jmabel (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

That is a good suggestion. I agree revenue leaves out many important entities in the world. The solution to that could be a section named 'Other important entities' which would include entities that did not fall into the threshold for revenue. These other entities would require a short explanation of why they were added to the list. Any other suggestions? Mcnabber091 (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

How would it look like?[edit]

I have some questions as I don't think I understand the proposal at the moment..

  • The project would be a normal wiki, possibly in different language versions, just like most of the existing projects?
  • What pages would exist in the project? One per covered country/region/entity?
  • Why would it not be sufficient to have the data in Wikipedia article and Wikidata? = Why an extra project?
  • Are there existing databases or projects with which this idea could be compared? ("It will be like XYZ but with ...")

--MF-W 02:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Every country, region and city in the world would have their own separate page. This project is an improvement of the current, 'Economy of _____' pages because it provides standard comparability in terms of statistics. Wikidata will be a huge part of this project and most likely the Global Economic Map will be created entirely within Wikidata. Here wikidata task force for this project: http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Global_Economic_Map_task_force.
Proposed list of the properties here: http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/Term#Economics.2F_Wirtschaft.2F_Economie
This can be compared to CIA world Factbook or any other sort of collection of economic statistics. This is a unique model in that is attempts to get statistics for every city in the world with a standard data set. The project be either a sister project or apart of wikidata. I don't see it being apart of the normal English Wikipedia.Mcnabber091 (talk) 05:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Grant proposal[edit]

As a courtesy, I would like to inform anyone who follows this page that this project is now applying for a grant as a means of making the data available at Wikidata:

Thoughts? Feedback? The grant proposal has a talk page (and it has already linked to this one). Gryllida 23:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Suggestion to reopen this project for discussion and rename project[edit]

I'm curious if this project would have any interest at this time. I originally created this project proposal in 2013, and I created https://econfactbook.org/ in 2015 to demonstrate this idea. Econ Factbook isn't updated automatically, so it is static with 2013-2015 economic statistics for all 193 UN member counties.

I'm not involved with Wikidata, so I don't know how feasible this project is being made at this time.

I believe this project could be a useful tool for people around the world to access economic data about their hometown, state, or country (depending if the data is available). This idea can be compared to looking at baseball statistics on the back of baseball card, but for an economy. A person can look up a place, and learn about the economy with updated statistics.

I suggest that this project should be renamed 'Wikieconomy'.

Mcnabber091 (talk) 01:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply