Jump to content

Talk:Delphi method

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 86.161.190.114 (talk) at 16:06, 20 February 2023 (→Some moved content: ...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
WikiProject iconFutures studies C‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Futures studies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Futures studies 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.Futures studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Futures studiesTemplate:WikiProject Futures studiesfutures studies
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconStatistics C‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics 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.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

This article is imported from Everything2; see their Dephi method page.

Calling criticism "conspiracy theory" is biased; lack of attention to legitimate criticism; NPOV

I just came to this story for the first time. I see that potentially legitimate criticism is cast as "conspiracy theory," and it's relegated to the very last substantive section. Also, variants of the method's use that may be coercive in nature are completely missing. That all smacks of bias.

And completely missing is any criticism whatsoever discussed in an encyclopedic manner instead of as a "conspiracy theory."

There apparently are many uses of the method to direct the outcome of public meetings so the public thinks it made a decision that the meeting's organizers subtly manipulated them into. I don't know that for myself. But I see a lot on the Internet about that. It is totally missing from this article, except as "conspiracy theory."

As written, the article describes a use of the method that does not mirror how it is sometimes used in practice, such as in municipal land use meetings. The missing descriptions of the variants of the method's execution adds to the appearance of bias.

I'd like to see this story improved with accurate, unbiased information about the Delphi method and how it appears in all its forms, not just the one shown. I don't know enough about the subject, and I doubt I'll get involved, but the page reads like an advertisement in support of the method and all its undisclosed variants, even though such variants are the apparent means by which communities are pushed. As I said, I really don't know if that's the case, but it sure is totally missing from this or cast as "conspiracy," and I'd like to come here to get the full story, not what appears to be someone's view.

Words like "conservative" and "theorized" and "attempted mind control" and "apparent credence" and "conspiracy theories regarding the UN initiative Agenda 21" basically screams out biased, unencyclopedic content and agenda pushing.

I'm doing us all a favor by not adding an NPOV tag. I may if the page is not improved. --Lawfare (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia!

It's interesting to note how no-one has countered what you have written there. Certain Wikipedia editors are quite conversant and accomplished in their knowledge and use of the Delphi Technique... allegedly! I agree with what you have written, but I fear it's like talking to the proverbial brick wall... 70.238.217.144 (talk) 13:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This section of the talk page is great evidence of the value of the talk pages. I will introduce the term "Change agent" into the article and we'll see who comes around to try to remove it. Dscotese (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I must agree with most of the above. This article contains not even a hint that the method is open to abuse by the facilitator. While it might be considered conspiracy material, this item (http://www.freedomadvocates.org/download/research/USD-A21-pamphlet_2012.pdf) contains an excellent cartoon on the topic: a Delphi Technique seminar for facilitators, where the leader is saying "Our objective is to get the answers *we* want and make the citizens *think* they're participating in the public process while all the decisions have already been made beforehand!!!". I'm not saying the Delphi method is always abused; I'm simply saying that this article conspicuously fails to mention the possibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.114.112.13 (talk) 14:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"structured"

Several uses of that (and 'unstructured') without explaining what it means. 89.241.109.150 (talk) 16:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some moved content

@Uclneaxel: Since I'm unsure how this highly detailed sentence which you contributed here fits into the broader context, I'm moving it here for possible comment:

The Delphi approach has been successfully employed to improve agreement between experts in iterative rating exercises on clinical test results using inter-rater kappa statistics as an outcome measure.[1]

References

  1. ^ Petzold A, Biousse V, Bursztyn L, Costello F, Crum A, Digre K, et al. (16 July 2020). "Multirater Validation of Peripapillary Hyperreflective Ovoid Mass-like Structures (PHOMS)". Neuro-Ophthalmology. 44 (6): 413–414. doi:10.1080/01658107.2020.1760891. PMC 7746256. PMID 33408429.

86.161.190.114 (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Delphi_method&oldid=1140549402"