Talk:World3

The most significant criticism of the World3 model is in the book Models of Doom: A Critique of the Limits to Growth. If you have read the book, please give a summary. I don't have the book and neither does my libary. I will gladdly put up a summary if someone sends me a copy of the book. It is in my amazon wishlish at my user page, or, if you like, I will email you my mailing address so you can get it too me some other way. Thanks, Jrincayc 16:57, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You might have more luck asking at Wikipedia:Requests for summaries. Angela . 17:04, Jan 28, 2004 (UTC)

Comments

Since the modelers that created the model are most familiar with it, their criticism is most relevant

Of course, since Donella Meadows was very closely associated with the model, she would be unlikely to see problem in the basic qualitative assumptions, so outside criticism needs to be looked at

These are subjective statements, better suited to an essay than to a scholarly article

Worik (talk) 05:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed those statements, and the unsourced statements that the criticism is "false". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the section on the critisms of the model there is an article referred to that is said too support the predictions of the model. The reference (i think its 3), however, is for a Palentology journal that I was unable to access or find. I was able to find an article that fits the description, that is, a review of data of the last 30 years that supports the predictions made by the world3 model. I've included the science direct link aswell as the name of the article I found. (P.S. I'm not familiar with editing Wikipedia so I apologize if im not following editing protocols.) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VFV-4T7D8DY-1&_user=1022551&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F2008&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1655136934&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050484&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1022551&md5=64181542748c7fa75e74ede0bbcabcd4&searchtype=a

A comparison of The Limits to Growth with 30 years of reality Graham M. Turner —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.133.215 (talk) 03:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed text

"This criticism is in general false, since most of the predictions of doom or collapse do not begin to occur until around 2015 in the reference run. The model predicted that humanity would run up against the fundamental limits to economic growth about a century after the publication of the book: i.e. 2072, with extremely serious ecological problems only beginning to become obvious in the 2030s and 2040s. Moreover, some of the other runs in the model had even later dates for the beginning of the collapse. The 1992 book, Beyond the Limits, describes several values of the model that were revised to fit what had happened. None of those changes were sufficient to change the general qualitative conclusions reached by the Meadows group. " This is a note for me to re-add back portions that I can source. Jrincayc (talk) 13:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, but Limits to Growth and Beyond the Limits are not reliable sources for "criticisms (being) false", as they represent the authors of the model. If you can find reliable sources for criticism of the criticism, go ahead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are reliable sources for what Limits to Growth and Beyond the Limits say. How about I source the 2015, 2030s and 2040s and such, and we decide how to state the rest? Jrincayc (talk) 14:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are reliable sources for that, but that opinion is not necessarily notable. Also:

The unattributed statement "this criticism is in general false" is not allowable, because we don't have evidence even that it's the mainstream view that it's false. What would be needed there is the stronger statement that it's the scientific consensus that it's false.
The bald statement "Xs criticism ... is false" would be a BLP violation; so, also, is the statement ".... this criticism is false", where the criticism is attributed to X. Even "Y states that Xs crticism is false" requires that Ys statement be explicit and notable.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I put in some predictions from the reference run. I am not sure why Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons applies here, since it is criticism of the World3 model, not of the currently living authors. Jrincayc (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Criticism of the model" section

For quite a while, the "Criticism of the model" section has begun with the sentence, One of the major criticisms of the model is that it simply has not reflected the reality of the world since the 1970s when the model was first published. Would it be appropriate to flag this with a "citation needed"? If the criticism described is indeed a "major criticism," it shouldn't be too hard to find a few examples of it.

On a related note, The Limits to Growth cites a 2008 paper called "A comparison of The Limits to Growth with 30 years of reality," which claims that the Reference Run of the World3 model agrees fairly well with data collected after the model ran. Would it be appropriate to cite that paper here as well?

Vectornaut (talk) 01:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(That's a terrible URL. Can't you add more unnecessary tags? Sorry. It's not your fault. It is terrible, though.) The article appears usable, but it doesn't specifically name the model, at least in the abstract. If it names the model in the paper, it seems appropriate here, as well. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The URL is terrible, and on top of that it no longer appears to work. Sorry! Here's a copy of the paper posted on CSIRO's web page, which should be more stable. If you want an "official" copy of the paper from the journal (Global Environmental Change, volume 18, issue 3), you'll probably have to use a search engine, since I don't understand ScienceDirect's URL system... The World3 model is named in the paper, so I'll go ahead and mention it in the article. Vectornaut (talk) 15:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on World3. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090316225023/http://www.clubofrome.org/docs/limits.rtf to http://www.clubofrome.org/docs/limits.rtf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]