User talk:JADPhD
No offence, but given you are user JADPhD (also your twitter handle) - i.e. the creator of your analysis adding your own analysis - I find it difficult to keep your data on the wiki. I wouldn't mind keeping your analysis if it was acclaimed or posted elsewhere, but I can't seem to see that. I'm happy to be wrong and for you to prove that, but there's already a fair few admirable sources of forecasts for the wiki - and I don't see why the addition of yours adds any further value to the wiki. I think it would set a precedent for any blog to post analysis and get it on the wiki. No offence, but that's how I see it and I'm happy to discuss it's inclusion, but for now I'll remove it. Communistgoat (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
What specific evidence do you need for me to convince you that I'm not just some blogger? I've been doing election forecasting and have published my work on election forecasting in peer-reviewed, academic journals going back as early as 1999 (in the International Journal of Forecasting and also Social Science Quarterly...I can provide the exact citations if you want), which is before most of these models that you DO allow were ever in existence. I've also presented analyses of my models at several academic conferences over the past decade. Furthermore my model was included in the Pollyvote analysis (pollyvote.com) for presidential election forecasting the past two elections. I guess my point is, I'm not just some hack that wants to see my name on wikipedia. I've been doing this for years in legitimate, academic, venues. Therefore, I think my forecast is relevant and merits inclusion. JADPhD (talk) 03:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Maybe I was being too harsh. I've asked other frequent editors of the page to come along and discuss your predictions being included. Communistgoat (talk) 02:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm gonna agree with Communistgoat. And please don't take this as a criticism of your ability or your credentials. But the other sources cited here are all from sources that are well-established enough that each source has a longstanding Wikipedia page devoted to it — not to mention that these other sources are widely cited by third sources. Wikipedia's policy on self-published sources (see also here) makes quite clear that the bar for self-published sources should be set quite high — and the fact that you're the one who keeps adding this source IMHO makes its inclusion even more questionable. Wikipedia's policy against original research is also very clear, and I don't see a substantial difference between original research and you citing your own blog as a source. CircleAdrian (talk) 03:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm neutral on the issue. On one hand, the information doesn't seem to be forecasting some completely absurd results and it isn't on some two-week-old blogspot page. On the other hand, placing the information yourself (regardless of credibility, accuracy, or reputation) pushes you towards WP:SPS. There would be a much lower likelihood of you running into issues if there was more extensive third-party documentation (though you already seem to have some), if you were operating jointly with another reputable forecaster, and/or if it were a reputable, established editor here with no history of shenanigans or WP:COI issues. Rhydic (talk) 04:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
All I can say is that I plead ignorance on the self-publishing issue. I don't have the resources of the New York Times, ESPN, Princeton, or advertisers at my disposal, so my research isn't nearly as widely publicized. If anything, my research only gets the attention of local media, and let's face it... this is Utah. When my 2012 Presidential forecast in September predicted a 98.8% probability that Obama would win, the University Media Relations department got criticized for showing liberal bias. They're a bit skittish now, I think. In any event, I really didn't intend to ruffle any feathers with this. JADPhD (talk) 04:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)