El directorio enciclopédico desde la Wikipedia.
[edit] Richard Casement InternshipMy first comment, so I hope I do it right - given the references in the introduction to "special features", I think the Richard Casement Internship (offered annually to a prospective writer on Science & Technology) should also be listed. Hank Stamper 10:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC) [edit] Economist.comMight it be worth including something about the changes to the economist.com website? These include a weekly correspondent's diary (an innovation because the author writes as "I" although still without a byline; and also daily columns on europe (disclaimer: written by me), asia, the environment, business, technology and arts (more are planned). New blogs are also due this year (so far there are just two, on economics and american politics) I would also say that as a long-time correspondent of the paper, I was interested in the discussion about Hitchhiker references and will raise these with my colleagues. I think this probably is an unconscious indicator of our common culture. It would be interesting to look for Monty Python allusions too. Edwardlucas 12:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
It seems that the website, which used to charge non-subscribers for access to many articles, now gives everyone free access to current content. Some of the stuff in the archives is still for subscribers only, though. I am not sure when exactly this happened, but I think it's fairly recent. I don't know if it will last, either. I don't really see it as a viable business model. Does anyone have any more details about this? --sergeymk 01:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Quality of The EconomistThe Economist seems to be generally accepted as an one of the best magazines available in the world. Maybe that deserves to be mentioned. For example, Barton Biggs states in his book Hedgehogging, (320 pages; Wiley; 2006; ISBN 0-471-77191-0) that "Each week I try to read The Economist carefully. It is unquestionable the best magazine in the world, and nothing else has close to its global reach." Also Philip E. Tetlock notes in Expert Political Judgement, (311 pages; 2005; Priston University Press; ISBN 0-691-12302-0) that "the professionals - experts and dilettantes - possessed extra measure of sophistication that allowed them to beat the undergraduates soundly and to avoid losing by igminiously large margins to the chinp ad grude extrapolation algorithms. that extra sophistication would appear to be pegged in the vincinity of savvy readers of high-quality news sources such as the Economist, the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Times, the publications that dilettantes most frequently reported as useful sources of information on topics outside their expertice." In other words, people reading The Economist make better long-term forecasts about the society. --Jari.mustonen 21:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
No commercial advertisement or spam at wikipedia, thanks! Jari's suggestion could be in an advertisement of the economist, not in this article.
That would not be a commercial advertisement for The Economist, and I personally think assertions of certain world leaders or top businesspeople who say they read the Economist would be an interesting addition to the article. Bill Gates has said he reads it cover to cover. That sort of information is informative for the reader.--Gloriamarie 02:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] GA nomination - on holdI'll pass this article once some loose ends are tied:
Minor concern: Is there any notable criticism of The Economist? The article only has positive things to say. Carson 02:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] PassedIt's been in excess of the 7 day maximum that the GA nomination was put on-hold, and everything seems to be in good order. Congrats! Nja247 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC) [edit] Identifying contributorsI've added a bit that they will name their contributors when reviewing work of someone connected with The Economist. I have noticed this happening once in the last 15 or so years. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Man with two legs (talk • contribs) 12:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC). [edit] Links to economist.com blogsDo we really need the recently-added links to economist.com blogs? Anyone truly interested will surely find them through the economist.com link, and it does rather open the floodgates to endless linking of economist.com sub-sections... Barnabypage 17:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. The blogs are new and people may not be aware of their existence. It is a useful addition to the external links and should be placed back.---Gloriamarie 02:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC) [edit] Fair use rationale for Image:The Economist logo.png Image:The Economist logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Criticism sectionAt present the only reference in the criticism section is a group blog, which doesn't meet the needs of Verifiability. I acknowledge that the position of the Economist is likely to elicit criticism from both the socially liberal, economically and socially conservative media, so it should be reasonable to find a more reliable source for that criticism. With all that in mind I'll remove the source but fact tag the section. ALR 12:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
There now no longer seems to be a 'criticism' section at all. This seems rather odd, given that the Moscow-based magazine 'the Exile' recently published a feature labelling the Economist as "the world's sleaziest magazine". While that rehtoric might be going a bit far, the article makes some rather compelling points against the Economist. [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.8.98 (talk) 19:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
See below DOR (HK) (talk) 08:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC) [edit] Economist Cover PictureI think that we should definetly replace the Economist's cover picture shown here, and instead put a cover picture of one of their whitty covers for which they are famous. They frequently modify famous paintings or images to cartoonise the situation. June 17th - Biology's Big Bang. May 19th - America's fear of China. [3] January 27th - Greening of America. My choice would be the May 19th issue - America's fear of China because its the funniest out of these recent ones. How about this hilaraious one of Kim Jong il [4] Everyone agree? Tri400 16:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC) I vote for Kim Jong Il, and I agree, the one there now is lacking something. If you think the covers are good now, though, they were absolutely hilarious in the '80s/early '90s. They had some great cover artists then. Newer ones are probably more appropriate, though.--Gloriamarie 02:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC) [edit] The EditorSomeone has changed the page to make Daniel Franklin the editor. He runs the online Economist, but the overall editor is John Micklethwait. I have changed this. Edwardlucas 09:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC) [edit] Tone & VoiceWhat I've found unusual in the Economist is the somewhat frequent self-reference. As in 'the Iraq war, which this publication advocated', and others. I'll try to find a reference. Wikiak 03:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
--Nick Harkin 13:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC) The Economist is very much a right wing piece of journalism. It is far from "far and balanced". This needs to be mentioned in the entry! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.159.41.4 (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Economist-Jan-2007.jpgImage:Economist-Jan-2007.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 08:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC) [edit] Ideological confusion
I quote this entire paragraph because its inaccuracy is not readily localized to any particular phrase. "Fiscal conservatism" is, even when specified to US usage, an extremely fuzzy term, which can readily be applied to any political platform that includes a demand to lower tax or to run a balanced budget without paying of debt or to run a surplus with which to pay off national debt — but it does not necessarily imply the classically liberal anti-regulation, free-trade stance implied both by "economism" and by The Economists 's editorial position. "Economic liberalism" comes closer, but it obscures the fact that The Economist has been a fairly consistent defender of classical liberal values outside of the purely economic realm, going as far as to express skepticism at, for instance, the prohibition of psychoactive substances. "Globalization" (or, if you will, "globalisation" — they do spell the British way, after all) is an even vaguer term, and as far as I can remember The Economist tends wisely to avoid pronouncing any sweeping judgment of its desirability. "Left" and "right," make all the other characterizations pale in comparison: let us not forget, when discussing a newspaper as old as this one, that Frédéric Bastiat, the French parliamentarian and pamphleteer who was so inspired by Cobden and Bright, sat on the left in the only legislative body in which "left" and "right" were ever defined in the truly canonical way. After the excursion into political handedness, the paragraph returns to "social liberalism," which is supported by an "it" of which the antecedent can, 'far as I can tell, only be "economic liberalism" — can that possibly be enlightening for our readers? And the "contrast" referred to in the sentence following that, in turn, is wholly specious. There is nothing inherently paradoxical about applying the principle of individual liberty in the same way to affairs that involve monetary transactions and to those that do not. Sjeng (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] CriticismAs the main complaint seemed to be that the Criticism section was under-referenced, I've rewritten it with proper citations. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC) [edit] Category:The Economist peopleI have created this new category; please help populate. Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC) [edit] "Limited journalistic experience"Objection to the source of "The newspaper runs with a skeletal crew of mostly young writers with limited journalistic experience, which is one reason for its policy of anonymous authorship." This statement is cited, but the source is one editorial in a single newspaper over 15 years ago. I don't regard this as nearly enough evidence to make a blanket statement about the qualities of either the economist's writers or the reason(s) behind their anonymity. More importantly even the cited article itself only subtly makes the conjecture that the writer's inexperience is the reason the economist doesn't list them. Even if this was all fact at the time of the article's writing, it's outdated by more than 15 years, years in which I'm sure there's been a significant turnover of writers. I'm all for a balanced article with a good dose of criticism, and I don't object to the section about the disproportionate number of students from one school or the number of reporters in London, which are both verifiable. But the "skeletal crew" sentence is a loaded POV statement taken from a negative editorial article published 15 years ago, and I don't think it belongs in the introduction unless further sources are introduced. Removing it unless someone provides further documentation. 167.206.19.130 (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Goldfish
[edit] Do not remove cited factsOne can't just remove cited material because one does not like it. That The Economist hires young graduates is well-known and relevant. The information is verifiable from mainstream, reliable sources. Saying someone graduated from a prestigious school like Oxford is not NPOV anyway. Six years is not that long ago. I see no cites for the implied OR claim that The Economist recognized recently and does NOT recruit from Oxford. See WP:VERIFY, WP:RELIABLE. Xouwaodiu (talk) 05:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Again, you cannot just remove things because you dislike them. For good or for ill. Wilipedia does work merely on intuitive editorial judgment.You find the statement meaningless, but others have not, as the issue comes up in numerous cited references.. A factual claim in a reliable source, even in an op-ed, is still reliable. These are not dubious sources. Please stop deleting material with multiple citations. See WP:VERIFY, WP:RELIABLE. Shivering Vacancy (talk) 22:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC) Raised this over at the RS Noticeboard ALR (talk) 22:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC) I fail to see why all this is controversial. After all Magdalen College/PPE is usually an important thing to put on one's resume. Shivering Vacancy (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Embedded listsThe lists that the tag mentions are a brief list of columns, the 13 points mentioned in the orignal prospectus, and a list of editors, many of whom have their own articles. I think the general presentation of the article could be tidied up, but these "lists" are important information. AleXd (talk) 07:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC) [edit] audience descriptionThere's some debate about how to handle the description of the Economist's audience. Currently, the reference which is tied up in that debate seems to be out-of-date: [5]. It just doesn't (at least directly) go anywhere useful for how it's used in this article. Cretog8 (talk) 11:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC) [edit] References listI personally don't know how to edit this, as the 'edit' link on the page just takes one to a further page which seems to contain no content, but Reference number 44, linking to an article in the Observer newspaper, refers to 'The London Observer'. Such a paper does not exist and it's a completely bizarre to refer to it as such. If a more enlightened user who is able to make the change could do so, I think this would be a positive step in, at the very least, appearing more professional by Wikipedia not getting the name wrong. P toolan (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
"Competitors have a stereotype of Economist writers as hacks: overconfident young graduates of elite English universities who lack originality" Absolutely. The Economist is TERRIBLY written. I can't make it through half that dribble, even when it's of exceptional interest to me... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.232.170 (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC) Página espejo de la WikipediaDirectorio de Enlaces Directorio dmoz Directorio espejo dmoz Pedro Bernardo | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![[4]](http://economist.com/images/20070217/20070217issuecovFE400.jpg){kind=link}
