File talk:Inverse Dependency Ratio - World Regions - 1950–2050.png

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Sourcing

[edit]
dead link, and...
This SELF-PUBLISHED work, from WP user-account of David Canning, gives no source for this data: e.g. no way to see the methodology for projections/predictions thru 2050. (also, his WP user-page was deleted: maybe wasn't even the real Prof. Canning.
2010 July 25‎ 216.188.254.46
Moved from main page – replaced {fact} tag with {ref}. —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 07:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This graph is admittedly poorly sourced (as per criticism, doesn’t list its sources or data), but I see no reason to doubt that it was in fact produced by Professor David Canning of the Harvard School of Public Health. If anyone wishes to contact him, his faculty web page is currently:

and lists various contact information.

The data source is clearly the United Nation Population Division, World Population Prospects for some year, presumably 2004 edition (since graph from 2006, and there’s no 2005 edition) WPP 2004 (directory, Executive Summary (English)). (Clearly b/c Canning cites this series in his papers, and it’s the UN definition of dependency ratio that he’s using.)

There are more updated data sets at Publications directory.

This chart could certainly use revision:

  • citing the source (on the page)
  • listing the data as a text table (on the page) (for transparency and flexibility)
  • updating the data to more recent historical + projections
  • making as an SVG (so easier to resize)

…but seems clearly reliable and usable as is.

If anyone could take the time to make any of the above improvements, it would be much appreciated!

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 07:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, Canning’s edits were all on one day (2006–08–23), and he has not been active since then. This is a pity, but it’s not at all unusual or sinister – people often only contribute to Wikipedia on one occasion – and gives no particular reason to doubt the truth of the sourcing.
—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 07:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]