Talk:Universal basic income by country

Comment

As Dr. Guy Standing says in his 2017 lectures (like this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDF8o9e1QVc), Basic Income Pilots are growing across the world. I suggest we keep Pilot reviews brief:

Region, Pilot Name, how it got approved, current status, positive and negative outcomes.

I suggest we avoid listing every politician or celebrity who say they "advocate Basic Income" as millions now "advocate" it. Huge wikipedia articles of economic techno-speak are unreadable. Please limit techno-speak. Please keep this rapidly evolving subject fascinating and readable for all ages. Thanks! Tom Minogue Hastings

More on Canada is needed

The experiment in Ontario, Canada, has ended, at least for the time being. This should be mentioned and also the critique of this. Right after this: "In 2017 the Liberal Government of Ontario announced that in 2017 they would launch a pilot project in the cities of Hamilton, Lindsay and Thunder Bay, selected residents will receive CAD$17,000." --Mats33 (talk) 08:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Article title

It seems that [TOPIC] by country is much more common on Wikipedia than [TOPIC] around the world. Per WP:CONSISTENT, I propose renaming this article to Basic income by country. What do other editors think? Daask (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Daask: Agreed; moved. –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 17:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Reviving the WikiProject

Looking to revive Wikipedia:WikiProject Universal Basic Income. Please join the project if you are interested in universal basic income and are interested in improving and/or expanding related pages. Helper201 (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

RFC on Sustainable Australia Party

Is this - "A universal basic income (or a citizen's dividend) is also supported by the Sustainable Australia Party." - acceptable to add to the article? Helper201 (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, per WP:SELFSOURCE. Helper201 (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• No - This article is not about the Sustainable Australia Party, it is about a Universal Basic Income, and as such, publishing the policy position of some random political party sourced only to their own website is WP:UNDUE and WP:PROMOTIONAL of their position, and doesn't belong in this article, unless sourced by an independent source about UBI which mentions supporters and lists SAP. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

The page is about UBI, of which the given sentence is clearly relevant. The page doesn't have to be about this party specifically to have them included. Also, one sentence in the middle of the page (especially a page of this size) by no means falls under undue weight; nor is it promotional. Helper201 (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• No. Though it is a close call. The OP is correct that WP:SELFSOURCE would allow the otherwise non-WP:RS source to just barely scrap by as valid for WP:verification purposes, but the WP:WEIGHT question is another matter entirely. We're talking about a party which has never elected a single person to state or national office (only a small handful to local positions in a couple of municipalities), and whose candidates have struggled to even get up to a single percentage point in national and state elections. More to the point for our purposes here, if the proponent(s) for the addition can't demonstrate that even a single source has taken a note of the party's stance on the universal income issue, that's pretty much an open and shut case, as far as WP:DUE is concerned.
  Mind you, I did seriously consider the fact that this party seems to be currently focused on the UBI issue as a core part of its platform. But that's a sword that cuts both ways: on the one hand, there's an argument that a quick statement in the Australia section about a party having UBI as one of the major parts of it's platform is potentially useful information to the reader, but at the same time, there's a real question raised about that presumption when a party is currently so focused on this issue, and yet not a single reliable source has found that to be relevant information worth publishing. So ultimately, I'm of the opinion that the addition would be undue; the party in general just doesn't seem to have made enough of an impact on Australia's politics for anyone to have taken notice of their support for UBI, and our own coverage has to be mapped in a fashion consistent with that weight of (or in this case, the complete lack of) coverage. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, must correct myself on one point: seems the party did once elect a member to the Victorian Legislative Council in 2018. I don't think it really impacts the overall editorial call here in any significant way, but did wish to make the correction all the same. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it’s worth noting the party has deemed notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article, have elected party members at the local level and have had thousands of people vote for them consistently. Also, "notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists". I don't think a single sentence in the middle of a page the size of this can reasonably fall under the definition of undue weight. The party's advocacy for UBI and it meeting notability criteria for having a Wikipedia article of its own, having elected representatives and a consistent electorate in the thousands grants it enough weight to have one sentence on the matter of their support for UBI within the context of the subject of UBI in Australia. I think this is a very overzealous reading of undue at best to try and use this to omit such information. Helper201 (talk) 21:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Analogously, if Terrisa Bukovinac (notable enough to have a Wikipedia article) were to support UBI, and say so on her personal webpage, or social media accounts (with thousands of followers) but that info is never covered by RS's, you think we should have a sentence talking about her support for UBI on this page? Should we include every politician with a Wikipedia article who at one time or other has tweeted support for the UBI concept? Doing that would go against standard Wikipedia policy. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, "notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists".

Right.. Which is why I never mentioned WP:Notability in my comments. Notability, as the term is used on this project, has absolutely nothing to do with this editorial determination. Rather the relevant policy here is WP:WEIGHT. You seem to be conflating those two policies, as well as WP:verification. Notability is the principle that determines whether a given subject should have it's own independent article, and is determined by that subject receiving a certain degree of coverage in WP:reliable sources. But when you want to include a given fact in an article, you must meet both the verification and the weight hurdles. WP:SELFSOURCE can bootstrap a given source to verify certain facts, even if that source would not otherwise qualify as a reliable source. But it doesn't obviate the WEIGHT test.

I think it’s worth noting the party has deemed notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article, have elected party members at the local level and have had thousands of people vote for them consistently. . .The party's advocacy for UBI and it meeting notability criteria for having a Wikipedia article of its own, having elected representatives and a consistent electorate in the thousands grants it enough weight to have one sentence on the matter of their support for UBI within the context of the subject of UBI in Australia.

Again, I think you're labouring under some misconceptions regarding what constitutes "weight" on this project. There is an article for the Sustainable Australia Party because that subject (presumably) passed a WP:GNG analysis. But that means absolutely nothing to the analysis here. Just because the SAP is notable enough to justify an article does not mean that we automatically greenlight talking about the party on every single article that touches upon Australian politics. Similarly, the fact that a few thousand Australians support the party or that it has elected officials to office has no bearing on the matter. WP:WEIGHT is determined exclusively by reliable sources, no other factor (see WP:DUE, WP:original research).

I think this is a very overzealous reading of undue at best to try and use this to omit such information.

Quite the opposite, really. This is about as brightline a reading as they come, once we narrow it down to the weight test. If you had even a single RS to work from here, I for one would have !voted to include the information (and still will if you can find one). But at present you don't, so it's kind of the end of the story, as far as the policy is concerned.

In fact, it's such an obvious case that, considering that you didn't follow WP:RFCBEFORE, almost any other first respondent these days would have shut down the discussion down as procedurally invalid. Now myself, I'd rather try to clarify matters for your benefit than arbitrarily shut down the discussion. But don't let the degree to which I have engaged here fool you: this is not a case that turns on a highly nuanced read of policy. Again, if you can find even one RS on this matter, I'll change my !vote to support the inclusion of the sentence. Until then, I'm afraid policy ties our hands. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/universal-basic-income-for-a-more-prosperous-australia,18185 Helper201 (talk) 13:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

The issue there is that it's just the founder and present treasurer of the party writing an opinion piece. Unfortunately that's also not an WP:RS for purposes of establishing weight, especially insofar as it isn't WP:independent for our purposes here. But I'll tell you what, I want to wait and see what others say about the matter before commenting further. If no one else objects, I'll revisit my own opinion on the WEIGHT issue. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• I don't think we should be keeping it unless there's a third party source reporting on it, no. Maybe if there was enough content to spin out into a Universal basic income in Australia, it could be mentioned there, but relative to just the one paragraph we have now it's a little too much. Possibly the Fusion sentence could be removed as well, though I did manage to find a third party source (McKenzie, Parker (6 March 2023). "Fusion Party candidate Owen Miller wants to see government embrace technology for the betterment of society". Ferntree Gully Star Mail.). It's local news though. No strong feelings either way for that one. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Alpha3031 the Fusion Party supporting a UBI is also supported by this 2022 source from The Guardian, which I've now added to the Wikipedia article. Helper201 (talk) 15:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• No - This article is about Universal Basic Income, not this political party, so WP:SELFSOURCE isn't relevant without first establishing WP:DUE with some secondary coverage. I could find none. Void if removed (talk) 08:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

NO The party seems to minor to warrant mention in this article. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• No - I agree that WP:SELFSOURCE would be acceptable to give this information a citation... if it were to be included. But in a summary article about UBI in every country across the world, this fact simply doesn't have sufficient WP:DUE weight for inclusion. It really NEEDS more attention from secondary sources to even think about having the due weight required for inclusion. Fieari (talk) 07:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)