CZ Talk:Economics Workgroup

Anyone know if there is or will be a Workgroup devoted to Business & Industry? That is, who (if anyone) is going to head up how specific business entities and industry sectors will be portrayed in Citizendium? I'll check for replies here. --Gregory J. Kohs 22:34, 27 January 2007 (CST)

I'm either asking my question in a very dead space, or there's no interest in answering it at this time. --Gregory J. Kohs 22:54, 14 February 2007 (CST)

Certainly, I agree that such a workgroup is needed. My own area of expertise is too far removed [immigration and public policy] to offer anything useful, but I hope that some editors will appear shortly with an interest. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 16:54, 18 February 2007 (CST)

Well, if one gets assembled, I may be willing to contribute my time and skills to it. Not sure I'd want to "lead" it, but participation is probable. --Gregory J. Kohs 08:45, 26 March 2007 (CDT)

I would love to support it, but I don't even have enough time to devote to the topics that I have already committed to leading, sorry. But for areas near my fields of expertise--agriculture, energy, and bio-energy, I would be happy to assist. --Matthew Roberts 11:20, 11 April 2007 (CDT)

Looks like the proper forum for Business interests is now created at: CZ:Business Workgroup. I'll try to make myself at home over there. --Gregory J. Kohs 15:20, 13 April 2007 (CDT)

Economic heterodox tradition

To the editor Martin Baldwin-Edwards:

Critique is essential to science, I do not object to critiques or to critics. However critiques should be made "to the article", not on the writer. The expressions "The term "heterodox economic tradition" is not standard, and is therefore being reified by this article." and "The principal moving force, and primary reference point, for this article appears to be a pressure group known as Heterodox Economics Web (...)" have strong moral implications that are unacceptable to me.

Politness is a complex issue, and subject to great cultural differences. Where I live it is not considered "polite" to imply intellectual dishonesty (in the sense of the advocacy of a position known to be false) when reviewing an article, no matter how formal, soft or kind might be the words used to do so. As long as the above expressions are to stay posted, I am out. On all other issues previously discussed we could most likely had reached a agreement.

J. R. Campos 21:05, 2 May 2007 (CDT)