RationalWiki talk:Predictions
Thought I'd throw this out, see if people posted a few and were interested.
EXTERMINATE 22:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Layout....
Can we have this thing so the new stuff is at the top? P-Foster (talk) 14:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Oldham and Saddleworth
Here's the result
| Party | Votes | %age |
|---|---|---|
| Lab | 14718 | 42.14% |
| BNP | 1560 | 4.47% |
| Con | 4481 | 12.83% |
| Green | 530 | 1.52% |
| Ind | 67 | 0.19% |
| Loony | 145 | 0.42% |
| Pirate | 96 | 0.27% |
| Eng Dem | 144 | 0.41% |
| UKIP | 2029 | 5.81% |
| LD | 11160 | 31.95% |
- Oh... so I win. What happens now? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 02:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- CAKE!!!
ThunderkatzHo! 02:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- CAKE!!!
[edit] "The 2012 Republican nomination will go to a woman."
She hasn't got a chance, but still.
Acer Blue 00:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Result
Erm, if it's massively downvoted, and doesn't happen, is it still wrong? I mean, the down vote says "RW thinks this won't happen". So we were actually right. Then again, if someone said "in the year 2019, Vladimir Putin will fart and the subsequent explosion will propel the first Chinese spacecraft into orbit around Venus" and it was down voted and didn't happen, that doesn't really say much, does it? ADK...I'll deport your league! 00:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- A date-by would be good for some of these. Also, true predictions that were rather canny are thumbed up, and obvious ones are thumbed down. Humor is also a factor.--"Shut up, Brx." 00:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- I think it's clear that it's the actual proposed bet that turns out right or wrong.
Acer Blue 03:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
[edit] This page could use some cleanup/steamy hot lovin'
Given that some of these predictions have already been confirmed wrong (Female candidate, Rick Perry, etc)...plus some new ones could be added. I'm not certain I trust myself to move things from current to archive without fucking things up/taking a long time doing it. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Go ahead and try :} ТyComplaints 18:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] At least word these things sensibly!
How on earth can this be a bet:
- Religious belief especially Christianity will continue to decline in advanced industrial countries for the forseeable future and for several decades at least. Scientific opinion polls can give a good indication whether this happens but there are problems. (By Proxima)
You can't make a bet on something like "the foreseeable future" - when does it end? How would you establish when you have been proved right or wrong? Even "several decades" doesn't work. How long is that? And are we really going to be around in fifty years to make the call? And what's with the editorialising at the end? As a bet it's just silly!--Weirdstuff (talk) 11:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- It's by Proxima. She's... special.--ZooGuard (talk) 12:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- I hope we're patrolling her posts. Osaka Sun (talk) 12:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- I've amended the bet. This regular patrolling is helping improve my thinking. Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- As it is worded it is still far to vague. You have not sufficiently defined "foreseeable future", "religious belief" "advanced industrial countries" or "measurable change". Why not try:
- "The percentage of self-identified athiests in country X will rise from level A to level B by date Y as measured by polling organisation Z."
- That would be completely measurable and would leave no room for doubt as to whether the prediction had come true or not.--Weirdstuff (talk) 14:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- I've amended the bet. This regular patrolling is helping improve my thinking. Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- I hope we're patrolling her posts. Osaka Sun (talk) 12:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Actually, if you are going to criticize badly worded ones then:
Governor Shumlin will eventually abandon his efforts to shut down the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant.
When does "eventually" end?--Bob"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?." 08:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Well, when does his term end? Osaka Sun (talk) 08:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- I have no idea. If it said "before his current term in office expires" or even better "by nnnn" it would be better, no? And will he give up when his term ends?--Bob"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?." 13:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- And look at this new one:
- Tim Tebow will never start a game for the New York Jets.
- Presumably we will have to wait until Tim Tebow's death to know if the prediction was a good one! Because, well, you never know.--Bob"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?." 13:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- I have no idea. If it said "before his current term in office expires" or even better "by nnnn" it would be better, no? And will he give up when his term ends?--Bob"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?." 13:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Is it better if I clarify, or remove this and make a new prediction? I meant that he either gives up, or is voted out before he succeeds. --Tweenk (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Forking RationalWiki
At some point before the end of 2013 a serious attempt by members of the community will be made to fork RW. Please explain what is meant by the term fork.
- fork
- fork Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
- You need to top up the meter on your brain cell. Google wiki fork and all shall be revealed. Please don't complain that "wiki fork" should have ben stated in the original prediction - PeterL must have assumed that the sort of people who read project space articles would have a smidgeon of tech savvy. SophieWilder 10:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
[edit] More predictions
At some future point The Archbishops of Canterbury and York get married.
The Pope divorces her husband.
Nick Clegg does not become Prime Minister.
Several new and bizarre 'end of the world predictions' are made. 171.33.222.26 (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Since we are predicting what is going on...
Should we work to get this to the WIGO Bar? K61824"6+18=24" 15:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- Naah, I think this page is just a bit of fun among ourselves. SophieWilder
18:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- I wouldn't mind making it a bit more visible; the only way you can access it is through the Prediction article. Osaka Sun (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Rand Paul
What the fuck? Those might the most facepalm-worthy predictions seen here so far. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. Goats will fly before Rand Paul becomes the POTUS. Tielec01 (talk) 03:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Also, the prediction is too damn long. The more you put in, the more conditions you have to satisfy or else be wrong. I mean, I might have upvoted if it were just "Paul gets the nomination," but the odds of that whole thing coming true are virtually nil. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 07:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Did I need to put a winking smiley after those? Sheesh, the old RW really is gone for good. Secret Squirrel (talk) 21:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Also, the prediction is too damn long. The more you put in, the more conditions you have to satisfy or else be wrong. I mean, I might have upvoted if it were just "Paul gets the nomination," but the odds of that whole thing coming true are virtually nil. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 07:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Reformat
This page would work better with one or perhaps two additional columns. One to be filed in by the proposer which includes a specific date or very clear point by which their prediction will come true and a second which gives the date at which their prediction was adjudged true or false.
This would have a couple of impacts: 1. It would force proposers to enter a specific time for judgement in respect of their predictions. 2. It would enable others to easily see how good the proposers were. At the moment I can see when a bet was made and I can see it was true or false but it's not always easy t work out how much time passed between the bet being made and the person being right. this could simply be added to the Right or wrong column I suppose.--Coffee (talk) 09:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- I think it would be better to just add a column for the date it ended in Results. You can't stamp a date on "Marijuana will be legalized in two or more additional US states (WA and CO don't count) before it is legalized anywhere in Canada," but at least there's a general idea. Osaka Sun (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Dems retaking the House in 2014
As much as I'd love to see that happen (which is very much), I just don't think it's plausible. The districts have been gerrymandered to hell and back. There are some districts that are so safely red, you could run an orangutan and it would win as long as it had an R by its name on the ballot. That's why this whole shutdown debacle has taken place: in areas where the only competition is between right and far right, far right has won. I don't see how there's anything Democrats can do to get the House before 2022. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 07:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't see the Democrats winning the House until 2040.
- Hear me out: by 2040, Millenials will be hitting their fifties, which, if the Baby Boomers are a model for political involvement, will be when they actually start voting in significant numbers and influencing politics. Rich conservative fuckers like the Waltons and the Kochs will still be conservative fuckers, but will no longer be able to rely on buying the social conservative vote to secure support for their own deregulation and privatization schemes — they'll have to sell those policies on their own terms, which is actually pretty hard to do (for the most part, Americans like clean air and water, public schools, Social Security, and safe consumer products). Furthermore, past Republican gerrymandering efforts focused on maintaining existing seats will unintentionally bake in a major demographic shift in terms of race and cultural values — when traditionally Republican districts finally fall, they'll all fall, kneecapping Republicans for a generation.
- But until then, no, I don't see Democrats taking the House.
Radioactive Misanthrope 08:45, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Is it constitutionally possible to get a level of electoral reform via state-level referendum? Like make house, senate and electoral college votes in your state use STV? You're in serious need of that kind of thing, though it wouldn't be nearly enough. Peter mqzp 08:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- It would probably take a Supreme Court case to find out.
Radioactive Misanthrope 09:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- And I thought my assessment was pessimistic. If the GOP controls the House that long I will actually leave the US. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 21:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- It would probably take a Supreme Court case to find out.
- Is it constitutionally possible to get a level of electoral reform via state-level referendum? Like make house, senate and electoral college votes in your state use STV? You're in serious need of that kind of thing, though it wouldn't be nearly enough. Peter mqzp 08:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- If polling says something, the further the fiscal cliff gets kicked down the less the Republican party will be relevant. Remember that we're dealing with only 30 seats. 173.32.30.79 (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Win/fail - should we keep separate scores for the prediction giver and the crowd's opinion on the prediction?
As topic. K61824ZOYG I edit like Kenservative! 04:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure what the voting is supposed to mean as is. Peter mqzp 05:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Same-sex marriage prediction
It's not done yet. The prediction specified "by federal judges". The Arkansas ruling was by a state judge. Compro01 (talk) 16:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- And now it is done, with Idaho's ban getting knocked down by a federal judge. Compro01 (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
[edit] I think we should remove undated predictions.
If a prediction does not indicate a time by which the situation will have have happened (or not happened) it should be removed. Examples include:
- RationalWiki will not fork because of gender/sexuality topics.
How will we ever know if this negative prediction is correct? It's impossible.
- The question of the health effects of obesity will replace the question of the health effects of GMOs as the hot-button content-driven debate on the wiki.
Again - when? It's a crap predication. It can stay up for ever. --Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 22:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- The reason for either seems to have passed. I also nominate proxy's random "existing trendss will continue" predictions--Miekal 23:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Scottish Independence
Has not been achieved. How do we mark the prediction as correct?Serocco (talk) 05:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Worthless prediction
I see that an IP has added the prediction: "A small nation in Europe will undergo a major political revolution in the next decade."
It seems to me that this is akin to a fortune teller saying "You will meet a tall dark stranger."
As a prediction it's worthless.--Coffee (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yup, being vague is the trick to fortunetelling. ;)
- I'll make it more specific and change it to "Western Europe" if you prefer, though. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- I think you should specify the size of "small". Every country is "small" compared to the US or Russia. And what is a "political revolution"? Does it involve the violent armed overthrow of the government or just an election with a surprising result?
- Without specifying things like this it's so vague it's meaningless.--Coffee (talk) 21:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- I added some specifications. Better now? ;)
- As for "political revolution", I'm referring to a major change in how the nation's government will operate, e.g. a shift from democracy to fascism, or a shift from representational democracy to direct democracy. Whether it comes about through a violent overthrow, peaceful protests or normal elections doesn't matter. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
[edit] HCM?
You mean Hindustani classical music maybe? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
[edit] Can I just say:
Why do we have both Hilary Clinton will be elected president in 2016 and Hillary Clinton will not be elected president in 2016, and how can they both be positive votes? Ikanreed (talk) 14:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)