Talk:Scientific wild-ass guess

Comments on creation

This is a somewhat important term, used (or misused) in popular culture in a David Weber Honor Harrington novel. (Can someone supply which? Honor Among Enemies?) The key is that it is not actually a guess, but a judgement which the speaker cannot immediately justify on the basis of exhaustive search or proof.

Anecdote: a friend and I were discussing (back when it mattered) the difference between Huffman encoding and capitalize-with-carat (^) encoding. Having discussed the issue in SWAG terms for some time, I asserted it was provable that Huffman encoding was superior. My friend opined, "I think you're right [SWAG], but it's not a proof"; I responded that I could prove it, that a carat encoding was equivalent to a Huffman encoding where the carat token was a node with an exact copy of the superior Huffman tree below it. Thus, carat-encoding could at best be equal to Huffman encoding. My friend agreed, yes, that was a proof.

Thus, it is in used in Computer Science, and is commonly understood to mean, either, "I strongly believe in the truth of this," or, "I can prove this if necessary (if you disagree)."

I cannot attest to the USAF origin, so I query it. Other possibilities are any other contemporaneous scientific projects. It has been a standing term of art since the 1970s or 1980s, at least, to my personal knowledge. As I point out in the first paragraph, the key is that this is not true guess but an estimate the estimator believes can be justified if required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laguna CA (talk • contribs)

WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article must discuss the term's usage or give the reader more context. It can be deleted if it is not expanded to become encyclopedic. Binksternet (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The dictionary "definitions" just tell what the letters stand for. I tried to discuss the process, which is beyond a dictionary definition. I added it because it's about the only part of Swag disambiguation not explained. But, I agree it's borderline. You're probably a better judge of whether it is--or may expand--to become appropriate. I'm basically trying to start the article, hoping others will add to it. I don't think I have sufficient references for a comprehensive treatment, and I've pretty much exhausted what I can find myself. Regards. Laguna CA (talk) 15:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Also note Straw man proposal, a similar concept, similarly detailed. Laguna CA (talk) 21:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the article would benefit from a history of the term and from examples of use.

I removed some references because they were based on wikis, and wikis are judged unreliable by Wikipedia, as preposterous as such a policy may seem on the face of it.

Here are more sources that can be used to flesh out the article:

• William Safire, No Uncertain Terms, pages 95–96. Safire says the term is assumed to come from the US military (he says the Army). Safire's 1999 column about the term is here. In his book Safire prints a response from linguist J. Robert Dumouchel who wrote the 1975 book, Dictionary of development terminology. Dumouchel says he first encountered SWAG "in the vernacular of community development" in the 1960s.
• Melvin J. Lasky, The Language of Journalism: Profanity, obscenity & the media, page 106. Lasky says that the term "emerged" in Spring 1999 in relation to the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, but the term was used earlier by US Army General William Westmoreland during the Vietnam War. Lasky names John F. Harris of the Washington Post as the first person to print the term, same as Safire's 1999 column.
• Bonnie Biafore, Microsoft Project 2010: The Missing Manual, page 103. Biafore says that the SWAG is not very accurate and can also be called a "rough order of magnitude estimate". She says it is an early stage; that progression in a project calls for more accuracy and better estimates over time.
• Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Two sources compare CERP negatively to SWAG, saying that in 1998 or 1999, the guesstimate style plan of the Florida Everglades was at best a scientific wild-ass guess. The Swamp: The Everglades, Florida, and the Politics of Paradise, page 319, The Everglades: River of Grass, page 416.
• Other words: SWAG has been backronymed as "scientific wildly aimed guess". [1]
• For Dummies: Cash Flow For Dummies, pages 164–165, says that SWAG is a step up from WAG which is a step up from BOTE (Back Of The Envelope) guessing.

I would treat as the highest sources anything by a linguist such as Safire, Lasky, Dumouchel, etc. Binksternet (talk) 05:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Additional Anecdotal Evidence Supporting Earlier Dates (Wargaming)

I was introduced to the term SWAG in the 1977CE - 1981ce timeframe by a wargaming associate (since deceased) while attending Oklahoma State University. My correspondence from that timeframe has since been lost to misfortune, but I am certain of the general timeframe, location, and circumstances of usage. It is most likely that my source was exposed to the term in the context of serving in the Vietnam war, under fire. The context was a comment being applied to my own tactics and justification for troop movements during a tactical military simulation (game) being played on a map with counters (most likely either PANZER LEADER or SQUAD LEADER, both published by Avalon Hill Games). -- Mike C. Baker -- 71.170.36.226 (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't take anecdotal evidence, only reliable published sources. Binksternet (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)