Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Game theory/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
This page is an Archive of the discussions from WikiProject Game theory talk page (Discussion page).
 |
|---|
Game theory FAR
Game theory has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
Is a featured article review, please comment and help bring up to current featured article standards! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
See here for super-quicky intro. This is a non-equilibrium solution concept, possibly most useful for games which are played only once.Cretog8 (talk) 04:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Individual Choice
There's obviously lots of overlap between individual choice and game theory. I've even heard some people describe individual choice problems as "degenerate games". But it seems like there should be a reasonable distinction made. For instance, expected utility hypothesis and ambiguity aversion are both properties of individual choice, although they are relevant to many games.Cretog8 (talk) 00:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I was looking for individual choice, but decision theory has an article. Tie to there somehow?Cretog8 (talk) 14:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Equilibrium under Ambiguity
EUA is an equilibrium concept (possibly multiple similar concepts) in which game players have ambiguous beliefs. They may be ambiguity averse or maybe ambiguity loving. Folks who have worked on this include (this is not exhaustive) Dow, Werlang, Eichberger, Kelsey, Schipper, Lo, Klibanoff.Cretog8 (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Ex-Post Nash
I'm just meeting the idea of "Ex-Post Nash Equilibrium". I haven't nailed it down yet. It looks like a kind of Bayesian equilibrium. Possibly a BNE in which revelation of types wouldn't cause any player to change their move? I've seen it referenced for mechanism design.Cretog8 (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Nucleolus satisfactory?
"Nucleolus (Game theory)" is in the list of economics requested articles. There is a section on it at Cooperative game. I suspect that's adequate at least as a basis? Cretog8 (talk) 05:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Strategy article
So, there's a sad little article Strategy (game theory). It's obviously very important, but all the substance is in articles like pure strategy, mixed strategy, dominance (game theory). Any ideas how to make the article less sad? Cretog8 (talk) 09:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- 1st impression: merge pure strategy & mixed strategy into Strategy (game theory), not sure about dominance (game theory). Cheers, Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Pete. I think merging mixed and pure into strategy would be worth while. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 15:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- I've got a possible merge at my scratchpad. I've tweaked it some (the section on strategy sets is all me, and there's some opinion in "choosing a strategy set"). I think it's good enough for a merge, and then any arguments could be hammered out on the new page. Thoughts? Cretog8 (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
- The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
- The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
- A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject user box
I liked having a WikiProject Economics userbox, so I mostly copied it to make one for this project. You can see it at Template:User WikiProject Game theory, and can put it on your user page if you want with {{User WikiProject Game theory}}.
I'm indifferent to the style of the box, so if the appearance displeases you and you think you can do better, go for it.
Also copying the Economics userbox, I had this userbox link to a "participants" category. But such a category hasn't previously existed for this project. I figure to make such a category, and copy the participants from the project page to the category. Thoughts? CRETOG8(t/c) 20:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I've copied the participants list to Category:WikiProject_Game_theory_participants. Adding the userbox to your user page will also automatically add you. CRETOG8(t/c) 20:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Nobel laureate assessment
I'm working on making all Economics Nobel laureates' bios High importance in that project. I'm going to do the same for those who won because of game theory for this project. Doesn't exactly match the assessment criteria, but I think it makes good sense. Feel free to argue. CRETOG8(t/c) 23:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I'll bite... In my very humble opinion, any article explaining research that went towards a Nobel Prize is far higher in importance than the biography of the researcher. Why do I think this is a problem? Just my opinion, but I think things like WP:GA are skewing effort on wikipedia towards Biographies as penalize articles consisting of material beyond the mid-highschool level of difficulty. It seems to me that the vast majority of Category:High-importance Economics articles are biographies. There are 17 articles in the "top" importance category of wikiproject econ, one of which is the Ben Bernanke biography. Surely a list of the 50 most important topics in economics doesn't include the details of his life? If effort in improving articles is going to follow the inportance ranking, then I suggest we rank the subject, per se, higher than the biographies. In wikiproject econ: 2 of 4 FAs, 1 of 2 "A" class articles, and 4 of 8 GAs are biographies. Whereas in physics it is 7 of 28 FA, 1 of 22 "A" class, and 3 of 27 GAs. In biology it is 0 of 7 FAs, and 0 of 4 GAs. I would view that as an indication that those projects are placing a higher premium on documenting the important topics in their area. OK, that's the end of my little rant. I won't go reverting any such changes to the importance of biographies, I just thought I'd put in my 2c against biographies in general (while not meaning to imply that these aren't exceptionally encyclopedic biographies) and you can count me as an official neutral (not an "opposed") on changing all Nobel laureates' bios to "High" importance. Best regards. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, that's stuff to chew on. And, as someone who regularly embarrasses myself by remembering an idea while forgetting the paper & author, I'm very sympathetic. My thoughts on bios are that they provide a likely entry point for readers who otherwise wouldn't come to an idea at all, and give the ideas their initial "face". Thereafter links can be followed down to the ideas themselves. I'm new enough here that I'm still trying to get a feel for goals, so maybe my understanding of rankings is also off. Anyway, good points, thanks. (And, yeah, that Ben Bernanke thing is weird.) CRETOG8(t/c) 06:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'd say, from my skewed perspective, that all Nobel laureates ought to be ranked at least "high" in importance within Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography. I'm kind of conflicted on this point, because (and here I'm following Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Release_Version_Criteria#Importance_of_topic as my guide) clearly Biographies of Nobel laureates fulfill the "top" criteria that the "Subject is a must-have for a good encyclopedia" and yet, I see them as failing the "high" criteria for Econ, or Game theory, that the "Subject contributes a depth of knowledge" about Econ or Game theory per se, but seem more to meet the "Mid" criteria that the "Subject fills in more minor details". So for that reason I think Bios in general (I'm willing to admit the Nobellists are a special case that tends run against my argument) are "mid" level within the subject area, but "top" within Biographies. Again, I only think this matters because these criteria determine what is included in projects like Wikipedia 1.0. It would be a shame if the vast majority of Game Theory articles included in that were merely Biographies (again I think this bias comes from far more from downgrading the "quality" ratings on articles pitched above the grade 9 level than from importance ratings, but I think these things get correlated in practice...) Best Regards, Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, that's stuff to chew on. And, as someone who regularly embarrasses myself by remembering an idea while forgetting the paper & author, I'm very sympathetic. My thoughts on bios are that they provide a likely entry point for readers who otherwise wouldn't come to an idea at all, and give the ideas their initial "face". Thereafter links can be followed down to the ideas themselves. I'm new enough here that I'm still trying to get a feel for goals, so maybe my understanding of rankings is also off. Anyway, good points, thanks. (And, yeah, that Ben Bernanke thing is weird.) CRETOG8(t/c) 06:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Game theory
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Refactor Project template using {{WPBannerMeta}}?
Should the project template be refactored using the {{WPBannerMeta}} template? This would allow for some additional categories for using the template (such as Redirect, if appropriate). I can do this if desired. Please let me know. Cheers. --Craw-daddy | T | 20:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm betting the silence means that you know more about this than most of us, and if you think it's a good idea you should go for it. CRETOG8(t/c) 02:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Zero-sum disambiguation page
An editor recently moved the article Zero sum to Zero-sum (Game theory) and made Zero sum into a disambiguation page. I'm not sure if this is proper by WP standards. By my sensibilities, it's overkill because the game theory sense of "zero sum" is so much more significant than (for instance) a particular episode of the X-files. But, I'm not sure about WP standards on this, so I'm asking for input. CRETOG8(t/c) 16:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Rationale
- As per WP:NOTE the importance of a specific topic in relation to another is irrelevant. Basically, if the topic gets into the encyclopedia it cannot be given preference over another or vice versa. The fact is that there are multiple pages which have "zero sum" in their titles and it is impossible to know which topic the reader is looking for, hence the creation of the page per WP: DISAMBIG
- Addendum: a quick survey of the articles in question seems to indicate that the articless derive their titles from the game theory concept discussed herein. It is therefore appropriate to provide a quick summation of zero sum in the context of game theory, to aid in comprehension.
- Addendum: Also if you use the [[article title|link display]] syntax you can skip the disambig entirly and go strait to the appropriate article. (eg. [[Zero-sum (Game theory)| game theory]] will yield Zero-sum which points diretly to the game theory concept as is proper
--Tennekis(rant) 20:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining. I don't see anything at WP:NOTE on disambiguation, but there is a guideline on primary topics and disambiguation. I don't know that this matters much, but it's a WP-learning thing for me. I'd lean towards making Zero sum redirect to Zero-sum (game theory) (and switch the cap on "game"), and provide a link to Zero-sum (disambiguation) to get to the other articles. CRETOG8(t/c) 21:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- I also think this is odd, since the term "zero sum" derives it's meaning from it's origin in game theory it makes sense that this ought to be the primary article on it. For example, Apple goes the the article on the fruit, with a header to the DAB page Apple (disambiguation); Window goes to it's article with a similar link to the dab page Window (disambiguation). That is the way it ought to be. Zero sum should follow that example. Pete.Hurd (talk) 23:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- I filed a request to un-move Wikipedia:Requested_moves#30_December_2008. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- I also think this is odd, since the term "zero sum" derives it's meaning from it's origin in game theory it makes sense that this ought to be the primary article on it. For example, Apple goes the the article on the fruit, with a header to the DAB page Apple (disambiguation); Window goes to it's article with a similar link to the dab page Window (disambiguation). That is the way it ought to be. Zero sum should follow that example. Pete.Hurd (talk) 23:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining. I don't see anything at WP:NOTE on disambiguation, but there is a guideline on primary topics and disambiguation. I don't know that this matters much, but it's a WP-learning thing for me. I'd lean towards making Zero sum redirect to Zero-sum (game theory) (and switch the cap on "game"), and provide a link to Zero-sum (disambiguation) to get to the other articles. CRETOG8(t/c) 21:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)