Jump to content

Talk:The Political Compass

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedian's Scores

[edit]

Just curious about everyone's scores on politicalcompass.org, and wondering if we could start a list. I'm -4.5 on the social scale and -4.65 on the economic scale Karmafist 17:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You must be a South Park Republican then! (Im an economic -4.88, social -5.38, down by the Dalai Lama) --Angr (tɔk) 21:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey I had never heard that, but you're absolutely right! I just looked that up. How's this for a great quote from Mat Stone: “I hate conservatives, but I really fucking hate liberals.” That's me! Thank you for helping me, at long last, find out who I am! ElectricRay 14:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My stats were: Economic Left/Right: -8.25, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.36. Past Ghandi, Nelson Mandela, and the Dalai Lama, and almost as communist as Stalin. :)
I'm -4.25, -4.92 so I'm down with the Dalai. Seems to be a popular corner with Wiki users if not with mainstream politicians!--*smb 15:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Woo, I'm not the only extremist down there. :) [Economic Left/Right: -7.38, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.49] 87.189.155.28 (talk) 01:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Proletarians of all countries, unite!" :P — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orycteropus Afer (talk • contribs) 04:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scary. I managed -3.95 (social) and -3.00 (economic), and I thought I was a fruitcake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.88.21.154 (talk) 15:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got Economic Left/Right: -3.25, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.85. So I'm a Socialist/Democrat. That's about what I thought. ɱўɭĩєWhat did I dowrong 01:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Economic Left (-2.88) and Social Libertarian (-2.66), we all seem to be falling into a similar catatgory, looks like we are the 'norm'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazh (talk • contribs) 12:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the test is biased. 5 friends of mine, 4 journalists, and like 30 people in message boards who took this test were all in the lower-left corner. BTW, I'm economic -2.62, social -2.77 --190.225.201.28 (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Econ Right 2.88; Libertarian -5.79 (no surprise there). Likely I'd score differently if the wording were changed to avoid certain assumptions that drive free-marketers crazy. —Tamfang (talk) 02:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Examples

[edit]

As one interested in politics, my primary interest in this idea came from the political compass website; specifically, from its placement of historical figures. I found that it explained differences which, otherwise, were apparently anomalous using the old left-right divisions. So I did my best to put some of the uncontentious ones from the site into an "exampels" section, to demonstrate this (Friedman, for example, as an economic liberal with rather liberal social views, contrasts with others who are economically liberal but have authoritarian social views). This was removed wholesale by ElectricRay as being POV and original research (several of his few edits in the main space follow this I beg to differ - the comparisons are made elsewhere - but I'm assuming good faith. I still think the article would benefit from an examples section. So, who can we pick as well-documented and well-known historical figures, for the purposes of illustrating the model? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 22:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW (to save you going to History), this is what was removed:

To understand the concept, one may compare known historical figures or political organisations.
Stalin and Hitler are often compared, not least because Nazi is an abbreviation for "National Socialist German Workers' Party" - the existence of the word socislist in the title has led some to claim that Hitler and Stalin were both socialists (perhaps as an attempt to denigrate socialism).
On the traditional left-right axis they are clearly distinct. Hitler's policies heavily involved the private sector, and Jewish enterprises were handed to Aryan private owners rather than being absorbed by the State. Economically, then, Hitler was slightly to the right of centre, tolerant of capitalism but not embracing the free market ideals of the later 20th Century. Socially, however, the two leaders were strongly authoritarian, intolerant of dissent, employing significant resources to control their own populations even in time of war. Stalin, then, sits in the top left corner of the chart; hitler slightly to the right of centre but again near the top of the social authoritarian/liberal axis.
Milton Friedman represents an extreme of economic liberalism, favouring unfettered free market capitalism. Socially he was, if anything, quite liberal, for example calling for the legalsiation of marijuana. George W Bush is economically somewhat less liberal than Friedman, but socially much more authoritarian, for example being strongly against abortion and in favour of capital punishment.
Few international political figures occupy the lower-left quadrant, being both socially liberal and economically communist. Notable examples include Nelson Mandela and Gandhi (Ralph Nader is also probably in this quadrant). Most modern-day politicians sit squarely in the upper-right quadrant, with, in truth, little separating them. US politicians are generally to the right and above European politicians; Tony Blair is to the right of Gerhard Schröder. The Pope is considered economically left of centre but socially authoritarian.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Just zis Guy, you know? (talk • contribs) 22:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi, Just Zis Guy - you are right to assume good faith. Please don't take it the wrong way, but I think you must either lift info directly from the Political Compass site (on the basis that it is notable of itself - which is the very reason for including this article at all), or cross-refer to that information (if you can't lift it, for copyright reasons), or put nothing at all. I am afraid the discussion about Hitler, Friedman, international figures etc is clearly original research, and while some of it is probably true, some of it clearly isn't, and it doesn't add anything to the article.
I'm a bit of a stickler, i'm afraid. If Wikipedia is to be taken seriously as a resource it needs to be far more disciplined about keeping out original research and non-NPOV. In any case, it simply isn't needed in the context of this article: People know perfectly well what Hitler's policies were (and if they don't, here is not the place to discuss them - the Hitler article is) - in any case we don't need an un-sourced potted summary of it here, which is what that extract amounts to.
For example, the statement "few international figures occupy the lower left quadrant" is (a) speculative; (b) unsourced; (c) unqualified (what is meant by "international figures"?); and (d) from what I understand of it, complete hogwash: any liberal democrat politician, almost pretty much any "socially aware" celebrity (Bono, Geldof, Liz Taylor, you name it), any environmentalist, human rights campaigner - will be in squarely in that quadrant. The evidence from the political compass website is pretty clear (look at the graphs from the NZ, Canada, UK, German and US elections for example) that mainstream political affiliations tend to be fairly strictly distributed along a diagonal from lower left to upper right, so to say that few international figures are in the lower left is just ridiculous. And the business about where US politicians are against European politicians, and little separating them, etc, is clearly non NPOV, and (as you haven't sourced it) seems to be your own extrapolation - that is, original research. Sorry to be blunt, but I really think the section I deleted should be excised completely. ElectricRay 00:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm keen on WP:NOR and WP:NPOV too, I spend a lot of time scanning for junk and vandalism, so i know where you're coming from. I still think examples are worth having, though: as far as I'm concerned the Political Compass comes alive when you start plotting data, and suddenly it becomes simple to understand the concept. So the question for me is: which examples? Friedman, for example, is easy to place without POV. As to the business about international figures, you're right of course. My interpretation is coloured by the UK political scene, where even the left wing are right-wing these days :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 23:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you're saying - but even the Political Compass' site's own scores for public figures are pretty speculative. they have, for example, Milton Friedman to be pretty close to the horizontal axis, whereas everything i've read about him suggests (to me) he should be bottom right corner. So unless these people have actually inputted their own data (and who's to know whether the Political Compass algorithm gets the right answer, based on the data it receives, by the way?) I think it is difficult to take seriously as encyclopaedia-quality data. ElectricRay 12:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can assure you that the Political Compass algorithm returns the right answer. --Peter McConaughey 21:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, really? and how can you do that? - ElectricRay 10:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can say it because it is the absolute truth. The Political Compass algorithm is a constant of the universe around which all other things are based or judged. --Peter McConaughey 15:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that constructive comment. - ElectricRay 15:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that you are making fun of me now, but take this short test and tell me if you disagree with its findings: http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html --Peter McConaughey 15:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I wasn't making fun of you: I thought you were being sarcastic, or trying to be a wise guy. Were you not? ElectricRay 16:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In a universe where everything is relative, you have to use something as your constant in which to compare anything else. Einstein used the speed of light as his constant, bending and transforming everything else to make the speed of light an absolute truth, even time and space. My point is that we can assume that the Political compass is true and compare other things to it, or we perch the vantage point for our reality on some other object in order to compare the Political compass. Most people reading this article are going to want the view from the compass. They will want to know how the rest of reality looks when you assume that the compass is true. --Peter McConaughey 23:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, goodness. I don't want to get into relativism here, other than to remark a little learning is a dangerous thing. It never fails to amaze me how often relativism - and here, even relativity! - is invoked to justify almost any contention a speaker wants to make. This is a pity, because it does a huge disservice to the notion of relativism, which actually isn't nearly as silly as you make it sound. - ElectricRay 10:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: In spite of Milton Friedman's well-known advocacy for individual personal and economic freedom, theoretically putting him in the bottom left corner with Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard, his advisory position for the ultra-authoritarian dictator (and strange economic bedfellow) Augusto Pinochet seriously injures Friedman's social/civil-libertarian rep, resulting, perhaps, in an orientation more towards the economic axis (free market trumps/makes free people). But that's only my little theory. Besides, I'm a libertarian socialist, so what do I know about neoliberalism?71.230.163.43 (talk) 04:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, if a dictator were to approach you and ask "How can I make life better for my people", would you tell him to go to hell to save your street cred, or give honest advice for the sake of the people? —Tamfang (talk) 07:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By Friedman's account, if I remember right, his "advisory position" consisted of accepting Pinochet's invitation to come chat for an hour when he was in Chile for some other purpose. —Tamfang (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's why I would discuss approximate positions rather than scores. The positions are less subjective (unless close to a line). - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 11:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I tend to agree with you - with the greatest of respect to Mr McC, the algorithm and questionnaire is a bit of a gimmick - the political compass is really just a rough and ready (and subjective) way of describing ones political positioning which works a bit better than than the old fashioned "left" and "right". I don't think it's any more scientific than that. ElectricRay 16:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone I've talked to about the Advocate's short questionnaire agrees that the outcome accurately reflects their views along those two dimensions. You don't need more than eight or so questions to pinpoint something on a two-dimensional plane. According to Bart Kosko's Fuzzy Future, the only way to more accurately plot one's political bent is with more dimensions. --Peter McConaughey 22:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you say, Peter. ElectricRay 10:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Design with a Yellow Lib-Right

[edit]

This seems to be something that has had a series of reversions and counter-reversions and it might be good to have a space where both sides can lay out their reasons for preferring the new design or the old design. 2A00:23C5:1489:7600:F549:318A:2E82:4ADB (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's basically an issue between "correct axis labels, but different colour scheme" versus "incorrect axis labels, but orginal colour scheme". I'll adjust the colours of the current version (with the correct axis labels). That should put an end this discussion. --Tilon3 (talk) 02:09, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reddit sub?

[edit]

Politicalcompassmemes is a big reason this test is big in modern culture, a quick mention to the popularity of it and how it affected the test would be nice Things That Work (talk) 00:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My removal of information

[edit]

Situation

Hello all, a user named Grayfell as decided to remove some of the written and sourced worked I have done. I don't enjoy engaging in editing wars therefore, I shall leave it alone and post what I have for all to see. It is up to US to decide whether it's factual, relevant and well cited.


1. Removal of history of the company that owns The Political Compass.

I believe this removal is unjustifed as "Pace News Media" is indeed the copyright holder of The Political Compass tool. The website itself indicates it is the copyright holder and a creditable sources states so.

Refer to: https://thedecisionlab.com/reference-guide/political-science/political-compass https://www.politicalcompass.org/test

2. Removal of Pace News Media history.

According to Grayfell's reasoning to remove the history of the company is because "opencorporations" is not a valid tool.... I ask people to review the countless Wikipedia articles that use it as a citation, including the pages of Instagram, Apple, Meta, and BBC.

Refer to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?fulltext=1&search=opencorporates&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1


3. Removal when domain was actually registered

I believe an important aspect of describing the history of the website. You ask for a reliable source and I believe "whois.domaintools.com" is indeed a valid source. It is used in multiple pages on Wikipedia, such as Dictionary.com, duckduckgo, and RedTube.


Refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=whois.domaintools.com&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1


4. Deletion of an scholar giving a positive review of the site.

The reasoning behind Grayfell's removal is because it is a quote "obscure journal mention". He is refering to the Journal of Social Philosophy, which is a Peer-reviewed journal published since 1970, by Wiley. Which to a reasonable person is actually a good source.

5. I have received word back from the user saying I have violated Wikipedia rules.

Here is my case:

If you are such a stickler for the rules, I IMPLORE you to correct thousands of articles that use open corporations and domain tools as a sole citation including popular pages such as Instagram. (BTW gets thousands page views) Wikipedia has acknowledged that the rules are not firm and should follow the "spirit of the law". Refer to Five Pillers (Wikipedia has no firm rules) You are correct in the assessment that some of them don't follow the rules HOWEVER there is a reasonable argument to be made to bend such rules as there's very little sources about The Political Compass website, and therefore dictates unconventional methods. I also propose you to prove me wrong by conducting your own research, until then, I promise you will come to the same conclusion as I did. I believe my information is quite reasonable, accurate, and well articulated to make it not a bad faith edit. By leaving this information out we deliberately exclude information which is the SOLE goal of Wikipedia. I will be making my case in the talk page as well. Please reconsider your position.

Refer to:

Bottom-line:

The current formulation of the rule is: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. [emphasis in original]


My version

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Political_Compass&oldid=1215069357

History

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Political_Compass&action=history Gameking69 (talk) 01:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To briefly go over this: All sources are judged in context. The opencorporates link doesn't mention "The Political Compass" at all, making this clear-cut WP:SYNTH. The socialistgroup.eu cite doesn't mention the political compass, or "One World Action", making it useless for verification. All of this needs to be spelled out by reliable sources first, not via WP:OR.
As for the domaintools.com link, again, all sources need to be evaluated in context. When this domain was registered may or may not be relevant to the "political compass" as a topic. The way to determine this would be with context, and that context would come from a secondary source, not a primary document. Domains are often transferred, etc. so to imply this is encyclopedically significant is a subtle form of editorializing. This may be useful, this may be misleading, or this may be trivia. We don't know without a better source. Our goal isn't to dump information people's laps and let them sort it out, it's to provide clarity and context via reliable sources. Presumably, Instagram etc. have ample sources to provide that context, but regardless, it doesn't matter how many page views some other unrelated article gets.
As I explained on my talk page, I did not remove the Journal of Social Philosophy cite. It's still there, I just simplified, removed redundancy, and consolidated the reception section to avoid editorializing and WP:CSECTION-related issues.
Grayfell (talk) 08:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Political_Compass&oldid=1258234853"