Talk:Willingness to accept/Archives/2013
 | This page 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. |
2009
I will attempt to source it, but this is a term has been taught in my University Economics classes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Spudst3r (talk • contribs) 18:01, April 16, 2009
Different things
WTP and WTP are very close related. However both are important concepts that deserve to be separated. When talking for instance about the endowment effect, both conceps come together. So I would leave both articles separatded. --TransportObserver (talk) 05:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Are they so different? Each has as one side of the equation. Why should a reader switch from one to the other to understand how the two are connected? As it stands they are pitiful, under-referenced stub/start-class articles. Combining them would allow for some proper referencing (by editors who can figure this stuff out) and producing something that might make B class or even GA status. As it stands they have no hope – witness the fact that no progress (WTP has been tagged as unreferenced x 6 years) has been made in fixing them up. – S. Rich (talk) 04:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
As a professor who teaches economics, I would never teach WTP and WTA separately, just as I would not teach compensating variation and equivalence variation separately. Neither approach is more valid; they each have their place depending on the circumstances and the question one is trying to answer. Currently these are separate articles with links to closely related topics; probably a careful reader is alerted well enough to make it highly likely that they will view all closely related topics. However, I think it would be preferable to combine these topics into one article with appropriate sections. This would allow for one unified discussion of the differences between them, best uses, etc., which is difficult with them in separate articles - and the current approach risks confusion for the reader if, as they are edited over time, the different articles don't agree with each other about context and how to choose the best method (or whether for instance both methods should be used, and averaged). Scientist99 (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)