Talk:Risk

judging by the rather large number of necessary linked articles that do not exist in wiki, it appears that this is a drastically retarded subject here...

considering the rather voluminous number of specific writings on such subjects as nuclear strategy and Mutual Assured Destruction and other such extreme body-risking endeavors that have sucked up huge human energy and planetary resources, it seems odd, ominous even, that risk itself should be so poorly discussed that decision-making under uncertainty or so many specific terms in that field should not be covered here already.

putting such a foundation under the more specific military, finance, and insurance topics, is a lot of work, and I don't think it should proceed if there are any significant objections to the view of risk outlined in this article.

I request that we push very hard on this one, and make it satisfactory to as many of our pedants as possible, and likewise for cognitive bias, before we proceed on to lay out the foundations of cognitive psychology and etc.

I guess this is a request for a "risk strategy" - and some vague consensus on how and when to refer to "risk", "threat", "assessment" or "measurement" - as these highly politicized topics are often meta to our editorial decisions.

On a more specific note, the 28,000 article mark and 100,000 article goal suggests to me that wiki is 28% complete. That is, anyone writing any article should expect to find 28% of the subtopics they link to already there... if we allow for some slack due to mismatches of expected names, we might then expect some proportion, say 2/3 to 3/4, or right now 18% to 21%, of our links already there.

The practice of removing "links to non-articles" must therefore totally stop, so that we can start to assess the missing articles underlying the ones that already exist.

Is this "bad link risk?" I think so...