Appropedia (unlike Wikipedia) encourages open analysis as part of its content. In project pages, this is quite natural. In topic pages, there is also a place for analysis. Avoid, however, drawing a conclusion and stating it as an absolute fact - especially if you know it is a controversial conclusion.
An example, from housing affordability:
- Limiting land release, according libertarian/conservative commentator Wendell Cox WP, is a major contributor to housing becoming unaffordable,[verification needed] and this is quite logical.
(This is included as an example of what is acceptable, not to imply that it is perfect logical analysis.)
Of course, analysis must conform with Appropedia's policy on points of view - i.e. analysis and multiple viewpoints welcome, but no rants. Let's keep things cool and hear different viewpoints, including those we disagree with.
By providing a platform for open analysis, Appropedia empowers individuals and society to make intelligent choices on large and small matters.
This will no doubt be challenging, to apply the principles of the Rigor policy in areas that depend on a deep, intelligent analysis, shunning subjective or shallow green views and pseudoscience. Through persistence and experimentation, we can find ways to achieve this.
Requesting analysis[edit | edit source]
Use the {{analyze}} tag ({{analyse}} also works) place immediately after the relevant text, to request deeper analysis. Tagged pages are at Category:Articles needing analysis.