Talk:Economic globalization

Purpose?

See no purpose for this stub article. Globalization is usually understood to include economic globalizaton. As such I propose redirect this to the globalization article.Ultramarine (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I'd rather see the economic stuff from globalization moved to here. Reason: every time I see "globalization" mentioned, I have to then determine which kind is being alluded to. It's annoying. They different kinds should all be split off, fleshed out, and linked properly from articles that currently link to the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.214.138 (talk) 03:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree, but this article certainly needs to provide a good answer as to what distinguishes economic globalization from "just globalization". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

China

Our country is an experiment in Globalization. Currently there would be very little economic globalization without China. Sadly it seems then, that economic globalization is dependent on a country that controls the size of the middle class work force in their country to manipulate their currency valuation position in the world for the benefit of a priviledged few. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.247.162.141 (talk) 12:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

To Do List

I think history would be good. I found this .pdf that might be of use: Economic Globalization: Trends, Risks, and Risks Prevention It's an article on how the U.N. assesses economic globalization. I think might do a section on Globalization vs. Economic Globalization. Does anyone object to this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyod (talk • contribs) 20:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Group 1: Add your ideas here about what sections and some references you would like to add to this article Kas205 (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

It was said in class that we should do a history section and do a section comparing the difference between globalization and economic globalization. Since these two are so general they should probably be the next 2 sections after the intro--Ler321 (talk) 13:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I also posted a comment on the talk page of globalization saying that we were doing a project and any help is welcome--Ler321 (talk) 14:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Great. I would like to focus on alternatives to economic globalization. I found a book that I think sounds interesting and relevant. Along with discussing alternatives, I will be talking about some case studies of exploited countries to use as examples. This may overlap with other group members sections, but I'm sure we can do some clean-up and readjusting to make the article flow.

Since we have 5 group members, I think we should allocate 1 person to the history section and 1 person to the comparison section. Any takers? There is a ton of information on economic globalization in China, if someone wants to focus on that too (but there may already be enough information on that topic on Wikipedia already).

Also, I've been searching google books and several books that I found are also available in the Econ Library (in Posvar). So that's just a heads up for a helpful resource.

These are a few resources I plan on using so far: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2003/sep/15/2 http://books.google.com/books?id=MywOAoRdJP4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=economic+globalization&hl=en&ei=K7jbTa2UC8ry0gHG7OHADw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=DznGtScIz1oC&pg=PA1&dq=economic+globalization+challenges&hl=en&ei=CrzbTZjhIM_dgQeTiIkP&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=economic%20globalization%20challenges&f=false --Kas205 (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks good; sources are a good way forward. If you need help with wikipedia generally, the helpdesk is a good place to start; if you want advice from somebody familiar with the subject, try asking the Economics WikiProject. My talkpage is always open too. Have fun! bobrayner (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I can work on the history section. I'll hit the major events that led to what economic globalization is today. I found a few sources at books.google.com too: http://books.google.com/books?id=O2m5ARhXICEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=economic+globalization+history&hl=en&ei=C-zbTevtKcHdgQfl1tTvDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=economic%20globalization%20history&f=false

and

http://books.google.com/books?id=ouiSFSFh_N4C&pg=PA1&dq=economic+globalization+history&hl=en&ei=C-zbTevtKcHdgQfl1tTvDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=economic%20globalization%20history&f=false

Let me know if there is anything else specific you think should go in this section--Ler321 (talk) 17:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I think there is room for effects of economic globalization on culture or economics in general as globalization has the some of that outline and it makes sense [user: talk:brucebeckerman/talk}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brucesbeckerman (talk • contribs) 20:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC) Here are some links to possible sources http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2258 , http://knol.google.com/k/effects-on-globalization-in-culture-differentiation#, [[[User:Brucesbeckerman|Brucesbeckerman]] (talk) 20:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)}

Maybe we could do something like positive, and negative consequences of economic globalization. We could focus on all the good things that it does for the global economy, as well as how it tends to exploit certain groups of people for the benefit of another group. I will look up more after my night class, if you guys think that would be an alright section. We could possibly also have a section that focuses on simply listing some of the most prominent corporations that are partaking in economic globalization, and give link to their websites or something like that. Let me know what you guys think, I'll be in class til about 9:15, but can surely work on it after class. Rsg20 (talk) 20:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Good points. Do you have any preference on what topic you would like to do? I think specific groups of exploitation would be good. As for individual corporations, that may be a slippery slope. Have you found a resource that list the varying corporations? If so, one could add the varying ramifications in which they implement economic globalization. Tyod (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Yea, I could do specific groups exploited by economic globalization. And you were right about the slippery slope, it would be more difficult than I had thought once I started looking. Is there something else you guys would like me to work on? I figured I would start with the exploitation of women due to globalization in "Women in the Japanese Workforce" By Bev Bishop, and work my way from there, surely there will be a lot out there. Rsg20 (talk) 00:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

This seems like a good plan. I am really happy to see you have started to discuss things on that talk page and interact with one another, rather than just declaring what you'll do. Note that this has already resulted in one interested Wikipedian stopping by and offering assistance (thanks, Bob!).

Keep in mind that you will be graded as a group, so while individual activity is important (it will "weight" your grade), you are welcome to help your colleagues with their sections. By editing only your own section, you run the risk of it being in a different style than those of your colleagues. also, keep in mind that the lead, while not the largest part of the article, should summarize all the other sections, so it is a section that is usually best written in collaboration by all editors editing the article.

Don't forget to reference all content you are adding. Usually one reliable reference per sentence is enough (but if you build your sentence relying on multiple sources, you'll use more than one ref per sentence).

You can receive email (or other) notifications whenever this page is changed. See Wikipedia:Syndication for how-to.

Other things to keep in mind: 1) you are welcome to ask for suggestions and advice from others; try doing so by visiting the talk pages of the WikiProjects listed above 2) if you mange to significantly improve the article over the course of five days, you can list it at T:TDYK and see your work featured on Wikipedia's main page (this will also net you extra credit). ---_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay I added some of the history section. I know its not much-I plan on adding to it. Let me know if there is anything significant you think I should add.--Ler321 (talk) 18:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC) It looks good. I was wondering what we are supposed to add and at what pace. I know it would be helpful if we discussed our views together after class so that we can make some real progress as a group. I feel like we has some good ideas, but we were talking at each other with no real unity. Would be nice to sit down and jot a to-do list. I like that you started the history in detail because that is a requirement regardless of our future topic targets [[[User:Brucesbeckerman|Brucesbeckerman]] (talk) 02:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)]

Ler321, a good idea would be adding current information on the historical implications economic globalization has in today's markets. One thought is the cross-continental aspect of it. I think it's pretty good and if you add 2000's era information, I think it'll be spot on. Keep it up :)Tyod (talk) 16:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we all need to talk about this today in class to get a good idea in where we're at. I'm lost but I think there will be some clarity after today's class. Tyod (talk) 11:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I added a new section entitled "Irreversibility". I does need expanded, so comments are much needed. Here's what I wrote so far, "According to China's prominent economist Gao Shanquan, economic globalization is an irreversible trend due to the fact the world markets are in great need of science and information technologies. With the growing demands of science and technology, Shanquan states that with world markets take on an "increasing cross-border division of labor" that works its way down to every facet of globalized markets from both developed and developing nations." A review and expansion would be great!Tyod (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm currently working on a section I'm probably going to call "solutions to exploitation due to economic globalization"... Ryan I believe you are doing a section on exploitation so my section should probably appear right under yours. For now I think it will fit best under Tyler's. Looks lovely so far everyone --Kas205 (talk) 22:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

It may be better to merge both together. Keep in mind that not everyone agrees that globalization leads to exploitation. You don't want to repeat what is said in Globalization#Debate; a brief summary would be enough. Avoid the social-theory-like discussion of "good and bad". This article should explain what economic globalization is and how it differs from "generic globalization"; you should indeed discuss the globalization impacts on economy, and mention the debate on whether it leads to exploitation or not, but getting sidetracked into the "globalization is evil/is not" is a path you want to avoid. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I just added my section. Ryan maybe you can focus on the positive aspects of economic globalization instead? That way we can merge our sections together to make it more of one mega-section about the debate over globalization? I'd perfer not to start completely over but if my section sounds too opinionated I can try something else. --Kas205 (talk) 00:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys sorry, I've been super busy with school and work. But that sounds great, I will work on the positive aspects of globalization. I'm gonna be working on it a lot tonight, so thanks for bearing with me. Rsg20 (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

AND also.. Where and how do you guys think I should put my section about the positive aspects of globalization? Rsg20 (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I also added a new section "informal reviews" to our talk page so we can distinguish our specific goals and tasks from other groups --Kas205 (talk) 01:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

hey ryan sorry if I sound bossy, you're doing fine! Everyone is just suggesting that we keep the article neutral and I already made it kind of biased (which I need to adjust a little anyway) so if you want to add some positive things to the "debate over globalization" section I think that would be good. --Kas205 (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Effects on world cultures

Hey guys, I just added a section called "Effects on Wold Cultures". I still have some citations to add and some more information, but it takes me forever to fiture out the formatting stuff and I wanted to get it added before I refined it. If any of you think this is good or bad, please let me know. I think it was relevant because it economic globalization effects cultures and cultures then effect economic globalizations direction. Brucesbeckerman (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Good start, and nice job tying the economic globalization to culture. Try not to get distracted by the generic globalization - the second part of the para no longer makes it clear that we are talking about the economic globalization, rather than the generic one. To make it clear, consider the difference between 1) how cultures influence one another, creating a global culture and 2) how does increasingly interconnected economy impacts cultures worldwide? Your section should be about 2), not 1). Something you may want to look into is McDonaldization. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems that there may be some fine lines between economic globalization and globalization. I looked into the McDonaldization article and though I see correlations, it's going to be interesting to tie them in together. Maybe it's just an oversight thing, but I think economic globalization is pretty broad and can encompass a lot of ideas. Could someone guide me on what to expand for irreversibility? Is there anything that people want to know more about? People haven't commented on my segment...(not to sound selfish)Tyod (talk) 01:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

VM dropped a comment about irreversibility below. I do agree that it would benefit form inclusion of more viewpoints. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys I just added my sections about positive effects. Let me know if you guys think anything should be added or changed. Rsg20 (talk) 01:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Piotr for your input. I am going to use McDonaldization as a key argument tonight. I think that will really add to the legitimacy of our post. I see how the argument should not be focused on general globalization but rather it should focus on economic style influences and changes. Brucesbeckerman (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys, I added a MacDonalization background to my culture part. Maybe you have some other ideas on what to add that could beef up our Effects on Culure portion. Brucesbeckerman (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I also like the irreversibility portion. I can see some avenues open for example pertaining to a specific case or two where interdependence is sighted besides just theory, but it's a great start. Brucesbeckerman (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Informal Reviews

Here is a new section we can use to evaluate the other groups pages: --Kas205 (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we can use some of the group working on archaic globalization's techniques. I like how they divide their talk page into separate sections depending on their issues/ideas. It seems that may be an easier way to see what each other has to say (especially since our to-do list section is getting so long!). Maybe since we are both working on globalization projects we could link our pages together (this could possibly work in the history section) --Kas205 (talk) 01:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

That could definitely work, also with our comparison section-although I don't know if they are planning on doing a comparison section too. I also looked at the Social Web page. I'm not sure how much of the page was done to begin with but they did a good job adding to and editing it. I left a comment on their talk page.--Ler321 (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I also like that archaic globalization talked about what goods were traded and who traded them. I think that would be extremely hard to do with our article since there are so many examples out there, but I'll at least try to highlight a few that are benefiting in my positive aspects section. If anyone can think of any other way to incorporate that idea let me know! Rsg20 (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Classmate reviews of Economic Globalization

It's looking good so far, guys! I think it looks pretty professional for what you've done up until this point, so just keep it up. I had a few notes:

1. You might consider editing the casual tone of this sentence in the History section, or maybe even replacing it entirely: "Someone had to be there to grow the crops and feed and tend to the livestock, which leads to a labor market."
2. In the "Debate over Exploitation" section, you might consider clarifying who these "Northern" countries are -- is this the U.S. and Canada? Or do you mean Western countries? In either case, which are they?
3. You may want to look at World Systems Theory as a way to add on to the "Debate over Exploitation" section, or perhaps several of them! This would be a good way to compare what the scholars you are referencing are saying to a well known and established globalization theory. Aspects of World Systems Theory that might be especially relevant are the concepts of core countries, semi-periphery countries and periphery countries.

Hope this helps, and good job guys! --Rsoruss (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally (or not quite), the core countries, semi-periphery countries and periphery countries articles were developed by your collegues, students working on educational assignments a while back. World systems theory is an article I contributed to myself, significantly, but that does not mean it is finished (as with many other things, it is a draft in the works). But it may give you some useful ideas. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys, I read the section on Social Web. It was pretty cool. They talked about the web growing from it's origins in the 70's to it's current evolution and use today and mingling with the media. They listed facebook, myspace, and other blogging sites as instances of social media. I would argue the web as an entity is a social process. It gives us possible ways to go with influences of economic globalization and its influence on culture. They have some work to do, but it was a nice outline for how it will follow. Brucesbeckerman (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

This article looks great so far. The only thing that I could think of improving would be the section the narrowing of the gap between rich and poor. The paragraph seems a bit repetitive and doesn't give much information. I also think that you should include another opinion on the irreversibility subject Ebw7 (talk) 23:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions

I'll add some suggestions in this section.

• Try to avoid "essay" style, particularly in the "Debate over Exploitation due to Economic Globalization", for example "In order to create better economic relations globally, international lending agencies must work with developing countries to “help reverse the international concentration of credit and expedite the financial development of these countries”."
• This kind of section really needs to use a wide variety of sources and views. And most of these should come from academics, not journalists or pundits. Let me suggest the Indian economist Jagdish Bhagwati, who's written some very accessible works on this sometime ago.
• There should be a discussion of the so-called "First Globalization" of the 19th century. It's worth pointing out that measured as share of World GDP, trade and capital flows were probably higher before WWI than in the 1980's. The "new globalization" that we are familiar with is in a way just a return to a previous trend. (Same thing may also be true for labor flows).

Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. I will work on improving the "debate over exploitation" section. The sources are mostly books about globalization as a whole, but I will work to add more variety. --Kas205 (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

A good tip to avoid essay style is to remember that encyclopedia (like Wikipedia) should summarize things in a neutral fashion, and not take a stance. Encyclopedias are not manifestos, or how-to's. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and keep in mind "Wikipedia is not a publisher of..." personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic... advocacy and opinion pieces... or a manual (even if it is a manual for reforming the world). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• Beginning as early as 4000 BC, people were trading goats and livestock as a means of money. People residing in an early civilization in Mesopotamia (Sumer) came up with a token system that was seen as one of the first forms of commodity money - these two sentences are about interpersonal trade and the invention of money, not necessarily about anything called "Economic globalization". While most likely the invention of a standardized unit of account that could be used as a medium of exchange was a necessary condition for something like globalization to occur, it is not the same thing as economic globalization, nor does it imply it. In fact, long distance trade in goods (as well as migration - we can't really talk about capital flows here), did not begin to happen until much much later.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
• Labor markets have been around as long as commodity markets. Labor markets grew out of commodity markets because labor was needed to grow the crops and tend to the livestock. - these are some pretty strong theoretical claims and need sources. Basically, the second claim is more or less true though for the wrong reason. Labor is needed to grow crops and tend to the livestock whether or not there is an actual commodity market in crops and dairy (for example, subsistence farming). Labor markets, like many other markets, grew out of increasing degree of specialization and diversification of consumption patterns. The first claim is pretty dubious - trade in goods probably preceded trade in labor by quite a bit (at least outside the household - but since we're talking about globalization here that's not really applicable).Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
• Irreversibility - this is essentially an opinion of just one person and it should be balanced by other views. And there are many such out there, in good part because as historical examples of WWI and the collapse of the "First Era of Globalization" show, it's probably NOT an irreversible trend (some people do argue that globalization in financial markets is more "irreversible" than globalization in goods or labor markets).Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
• I uploaded this graph to commons which may be useful:

World trade as share of world GDP

Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys,

I think you are hitting a lot of main points. On a lot of wiki pages I see more topics within the discussion. Im not sure where you can expand, but its something to think about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjc106 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys,

Good work so far. It looks like your effects on world culture part is still being developed but I would like to suggest that maybe for that section you could add in different regions, past and present and how it has changed over time. If there are any prominent events that really helped shape society they could be added and given some explanation.

Bfowler513 (talk) 23:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Bridget

Volunteer Marek, it seems that you have a thorough knowledge in regards to economics and globalization. Your responses alone consist of whole articles and I don't understand why haven't you contributed to the article besides reviewing. Grant it, your critiques have been constructive, it seems that your discourse has a specific ideological track in which you want to steer it. Please don't take this the wrong way and I don't want my inquiry to sound combative but it seems that you have a lot to contribute but no producing anything substantive in regards to publishing besides comments. Tyod (talk) 21:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

No offense taken Tyod. It's my understanding that a bunch of you are working on this article for a class project. As a result I don't want to do your job for you but rather help you do a better job, which is why I haven't edited this article (yet) myself but just stuck to making suggestions. Basically the article should stick to factual and verifiable information rather engaging in editorializing - which given that this is a difficult topic can easily happen. As an economist I know the most about the "economic" aspect of "Economic globalization". In other words the precise data on things like income, trade, capital flows, etc. On the other hand there are a lot of things written in popular (non-academic and often unreliable) sources about a concept like "globalization". You have to be careful here. Btw, if you think that an economist's take on "Economic globalization" is ideologically motivated, you can look into some academic literature in political science and the like to get a different perspective. As an economist I tend to have a fairly low opinion of the quality of the research done in those discipline on these topics (though it has gotten much better in the last ten years or so), but at least these would be reliable, academic sources. On Wikipedia, at least ideally, it all comes down to the reliability of the sources you use, rather than whether or not you (or I) agree with a particular piece of information in a particular source.

Also, I got a few more images I can suggest here, which I'll upload when I'm a bit less busy. Whether or not you want to include them in the article at this point is up to you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

History section

Re: By the early 1900s, it was rare to come across a town that was not influenced by foreign markets—whether it be in labor, prices, or any other policy of business.[5] With advances in boat technology and the inventions of the railroad and telephone, communication with other parts of the country and world was readily available. Towns were no longer limited to what they alone could produce and what the next two towns over would trade with them. People everywhere had the accessibility and resources to obtain goods from the other side of the world.

This is true but it all came to an end, first with the outbreak of World War I and then with the Great Depression. International trade and capital flows collapsed, and countries began imposing immigration quotas. The History section is missing the subsequent development where there was no globalization until it began picking up again in the 1970's.

Some graphs here may be helpful. Here is one which illustrates this development pretty nicely [1] (you can't copy the graph itself because it is copyrighted, but if you can get the underlying data you can reconstruct it yourself). Here's another good source btw, [2].Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Globalization#History is very poor when it comes to aftermath of World War I, and it of course concerns more than just economic aspects. But it may contain a useful source or two, or some content you may want to adapt. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your suggestions. I'm reworking some of the history section now. I'm also looking into those resources. Thanks again--Ler321 (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It's good you added the above information to the article but you need to be more careful with sourcing. Both in regard to the kinds of sources used and whether or not they actually support the statements made.

For example this sentence: This caused a slowing of world-wide trade and even led to other countries introducing immigration caps;

1. It's sourced to this website [3] which may not be a reliable source
2. There's nothing about immigration on that website.
3. Is clumsy stylistically. Who were these "other countries"? If you're thinking of it from the US point of view then they should at least be defined - but actually, US was one of the countries which instituted immigration quotas during this time.

This work [4] has more information, is more reliable and can help address the stylistic problems.

Likewise, the cited website does not say anything about "great advances in economic globalization were disrupted by World War I and the Great Depression in the late 1920’s" so it shouldn't be used as a source to support that claim either. Maybe something in this book could help [5] (this would be a great source for the topic generally, although it's a bit more technical).Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree that [6] is not a reliable source; it is a "random website", citing no sources, without a clear author, that we should avoid. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help I will go back and try to fix those sources. Some of the sentences I struggeled to find sources for becuase I felt they were more or less common knowledge. I came up with the sentences from a colaboration of readings I have done on this topic through my studies at Pitt. How would you suggest I cite things that aren't necessarily lifted from another source?--Ler321 (talk) 12:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Common knowledge sentences don't need to be cited (Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue). But which ones are common knowledge? I find Google Books a good tool for finding reliable references, quickly. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I also have a question--why is Investopedia not a credible source? It is essentially "wikipedia" for the financial world. You can find many scholaraly articles here and is often times referenced by the Wall Street Journal and Marketwatch.com. I thought this would be a good reference when talking about the capital market.--Ler321 (talk) 12:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Investopedia is a borderline source. Note that Wikipedia does not treat itself as source. Looking at this, I see no author, no sources. There are better sources out there, particularly at Google Books. Investopiedia could be used as a source in a pinch, but we have time to find a better source, particularly for an article that is aiming to be a GA-class. Also, ask about it at WP:RSN and see what other editors will say about it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

A recent change

I think this is great text. However, there are a couple of points to be cautious about:

1. It's very reliant on a single IMF ref. As this is quite a wideranging text of global importance (on a slightly controversial subject), it's probably appropriate, and probably not very hard, to find another source on the same subject (which might have its own nuances).
2. Be wary of phrases like "As we see from the information above" - it can make the text read more like an essay instead of an encyclopædia article
3. It might be a good idea to resize that image and make the text flow around it better.

Have fun! bobrayner (talk) 02:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Image help

I've been trying everything to try and make the image smaller, but I can't figure it out. Does anyone know how to do this? Rsg20 (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Like this Please add a caption to the image on this page, and on the image own page, as well as a source used (on the image page). Nice job! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I think I added the correct caption, although I could be wrong. And I was wondering where to add the citation on the image page, because I do not see cite as an option. I was thinking it should go under the summary section of the image page, but it would also make sense to go under the licensing section. Sorry for the confusion, I'm just new at this. Rsg20 (talk) 03:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries, images are one of the "beyond what is expected" things in our course, and you are doing a very good job with them. Adding a citation to the image - it is done by expanding information in the "Source" entry (it currently says "Own work") on the image page. You don't need the ref/ref tags for that, just plain text will be enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I downsized the image to 300px --Guerillero | My Talk 20:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

With regard to this image, please be careful and precise. What the graph shows is NOT "Real Per Capita GDP" (which is a "level" variable - say, 10 trillion per year) but rather the growth rate of "Real Per Capita GDP" (which is a rate variable - say 2% per year). This is a bit like confusing "we traveled 10,000 miles" with "we were driving at 60 miles per hour" (basically the graph is saying "We drove 60 miles" where what it means to say is "we drove 60 miles per hour"). Two different things. Honestly, labeling "Real Per Capita GDP" as "Percent" just doesn't make (mathematical, logical, economic) sense. This is from the Dollar and Kraay paper I suggested but it should be labeled correctly.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

too opinionated?

I am wondering if my section on "debate over exploitation" is too opinionated. I understand I need to add a couple various sources to expand the credibility. And I think the article is nicely balanced as we also have a section on the positive effects of economic globalization. However is there anything in particular I can add or subtract to this article to make it more "encyclopedia-like"? thanks! Kas205 (talk) 21:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)