Talk:Dunning–Kruger effect/Archive 2

Bertrand Russell quote
Why does the quote from Bertrand Russel lead to a secondary source? The linked paper also does not have a reference to the original source.

..."and Bertrand Russell ("One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision")[4]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.229.179.81 (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It links to the Dunning-Kruger paper, whose abstract opens with this exact quote. We're using a secondary source because the statement we're sourcing is not "Bertrand Russell said this", but "Dunning and Kruger noted the relevance of Bertrand Russell having said this". Per previous threads on this talk page, it's important that this kind of thing is sourced as being relevant, rather than just being "this reminds me of a story" WP:OR from passing Wikipedia editors.
 * The Charles Darwin quote is just referenced to a primary source, and that seems to be because Dunning and Kruger did not note the relevance of the Darwin quote - the apparently false statement that "Dunning and Kruger themselves quote Charles Darwin" has been sitting in the article for years, as their paper does not appear to mention Darwin once. (Although their original paper does quote Confucius, so I'll add that instead.) --McGeddon (talk) 11:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Darwin was quoted by Kruger and Dunning in the original 1999 "Unskilled and unaware of it" paper, in its third paragraph (p. 1121: "...as Charles Darwin (1871) sagely noted over a century ago, "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" (p. 3)"), so I've reinstated it, referenced to the paper. Brunton (talk) 13:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * For the original wording and source of the Bertrand Russell quote, see Wikiquote. The popular paraphrase is "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts"; I wonder where the variant sourced to the paper (is it really in there?) comes from. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Great example - one's skill in driving a motor vehicle.
No longer have the references, but apparently about 90% of people believe that their ability to drive a car is "above average". Old_Wombat (talk) 09:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This is an example of illusory superiority and is discussed in that article. I'm not aware of D-K type research being applied to driving. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Real term?
It is argued that the term "Dunning-Kruger" is a bullshit term that is used for people to feel superior themselves. By using an obscure word that may or may not actually be from psychology, it makes the user sound authoritative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.105.86.26 (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It is argued that "it is argued that" is a bullshit WP:WEASEL phrase used by people to make their baseless homespun "theories" sound authoritative. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not a term "from psychology" in that the name "Dunning-Kruger effect" started on this Wikipedia article, stuck, and has since been used by independent sources. However, since it has stuck it is now a legitimate term referring to an experimental finding. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If that is the case then this entire stub is just another instance of wikipedia fact laundering and it should be deleted as well as the authors banned. Bigred58 (talk) 15:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Easier explanation
Maybe I am not understanding something, but it seems that regardless of actual ability, people judge themselves to be slightly above average. Wouldn't the easier explanation be that everyone is not a very good assessor of their own ability and those that just happen to be "slightly above average" end up looking like they can judge their own abilities. I am thinking something like this: for any given task J=50 + 0.2R where J is percentile score of self-judged ability and R is the percentile score real ability. Eiad77 (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No. From the article: "Meanwhile, people with true ability tended to underestimate their relative competence. Roughly, participants who found tasks to be relatively easy erroneously assumed, to some extent, that the tasks must also be easy for others." (emphasis mine) Furthermore the article refers to "unskilled individuals" and "incompetent people" when referring to the effect. TimL &bull; talk 16:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Your answer does nothing to contradict my point. A person in the 20th percentile (R=20) would estimate themselves to be in the 54th percentile (J=54) (overestimating their ability).  A person in the 90th pecentile (R=90) would underestimate their own ability to be in the 68th percentile (J=68) Eiad77 (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello there! In fact it does, please re-read the "people with true ability tended to underestimate their relative competence" part of the quote.  It's about the other class of people putting themselves down the ladder, so to speak. &mdash; Dsimic (talk) 01:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * My explanation would also have people with true ability underestimate their relative competence. Eiad77 (talk) 02:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right, initially I didn't take enough time to look at the equation, sorry. Though, how do we know about those exact numbers within the formula?  Wouldn't it be less understandable to an average article reader that way, even if you're dead-on with the equation? &mdash; Dsimic (talk) 02:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I just made up the numbers, and I don't think this should be added to the article. I just thought that this "effect" is kind of misleading.  It seems that few people can accurately assess their own abilities on many tasks. Eiad77 (talk) 04:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Isn't this kind of human behavior misleading in the first place? This article just describes it, nothing more. :) &mdash; Dsimic (talk) 04:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The article is about a set of psychology experiments reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology) with a substantial Impact factor. This provides strong support for the scientific value of the subject. Disagreements about the article are mainly about whether specific parallels and analogies that appear elsewhere are actually related to the subject, not the subject itself. As a scientific contribution to the Portal:Psychology, the article is made stronger by limiting the parallels and analogies and focusing on the scientific elements so that these stand out. Richard I. Cook, MD (talk) 10:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You made an entirely valid point here, and in fact it's similar to what is said in the D-K paper and other papers. It's a pity you've been so misunderstood in the subsequent discussion. It's worth distinguishing between the first empirical finding and the subsequent theory: struck by the discrepancy between the real and judged rank of the bottom quarter, D and K proposed a weakness of metacognition in those unskilled people. This weakness, explaining the discrepancy, is what's more properly called the Dunning-Kruger effect. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Incomplete Introduction? (Causes for this bias)
My guess would be that this bias not only originates from that metacognitive inability mentioned in the introduction. Given a concrete problem, the cause could be just that people do not know about some more subtle problems that go along. Or am I now falling into that bias myself? Or is this bias-concept meant to be only applied to things such as reading or doing something “nicely”– activities which require a minimum of knowledge but rather talent/practice and the like? 2A02:8071:30A:4F00:BE5F:F4FF:FEA6:C2A9 (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Added reference to the Inspiration for the Research
I added a bit about McArthur Wheeler with corresponding citation. I've also cross-linked this with Wheeler's BLP, which is new and needs work. Help is welcome! Jaydubya93 (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Merge McArthur Wheeler to here
I propose McArthur Wheeler be merged/redirected to here per WP:PSEUDO. 183.89.164.87 (talk) 08:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I support this. I really don't think there is a justification for a separate article about McArthur Wheeler because he is not notable beyond the robberies which are briefly mentioned in the D-K paper. The article you have created gives the impression - intentional or not - of being a WP:COATRACK. There are lots more psychology papers about this topic and it would be better to summarise more of them rather than creating Wikipedia content about quite minor detail of this one paper. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I created this article 72 hours ago. This is premature. Jay Dubya (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Jaydubya, I've just read your explanation at Talk:McArthur_Wheeler of why you think Wheeler is notable. Sorry to say that after reading it I'm even more convinced that there shouldn't be a Wikipedia article on him. I've replied on that page as to why. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The central problem is that in the article you have "Social psychologists Justin Kruger and David Dunning were inspired to use his case..." followed by a citation of a reference which does not say that at all. If you have other references to back up this point, then please cite those references. Otherwise, please delete the statement from the article as speculation, and stop using it as justification for the notability of the subject. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Wheeler is listed in two highly reputable sources as Dunning's inspiration for the study. First, he is described in depth in the study itself by Dunning here: “Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties of Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-assessments,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1999, vol. 77, no. 6, pp. 1121-1134. Second, the New York Times lists him as Dunnings inspiration here: New York Times, The Anosognosic’s Dilemma: Something’s Wrong but You’ll Never Know What It Is (Part 1) By ERROL MORRIS JUNE 20, 2010, 9:00 PM http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/the-anosognosics-dilemma-1/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
 * Here is the NY Times quote, which is much easier to reproduce because it is listed in full online. I will need time to reproduce the relevant content from the study because of its length.
 * "David Dunning, a Cornell professor of social psychology, was perusing the 1996 World Almanac. In a section called Offbeat News Stories he found a tantalizingly brief account of a series of bank robberies committed in Pittsburgh the previous year. From there, it was an easy matter to track the case to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, specifically to an article by Michael A. Fuoco: "ARREST IN BANK ROBBERY, SUSPECT’S TV PICTURE SPURS TIPS" At 5 feet 6 inches and about 270 pounds, bank robbery suspect McArthur Wheeler isn’t the type of person who fades into the woodwork. [...] As Dunning read through the article, a thought washed over him, an epiphany. If Wheeler was too stupid to be a bank robber, perhaps he was also too stupid to know that he was too stupid to be a bank robber — that is, his stupidity protected him from an awareness of his own stupidity. Dunning wondered whether it was possible to measure one’s self-assessed level of competence against something a little more objective — say, actual competence. Within weeks, he and his graduate student, Justin Kruger, had organized a program of research. Their paper, “Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties of Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-assessments,” was published in 1999." Jay Dubya (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I considered the Pseudo-biography issue prior to creation. As you stated, I believe that the issue of whether this is a Pseudo-biography or not hinges on whether Wheeler served as the inspiration for further study. WP-PSEUDO provides a number of questions for review for purposes of testing an article for inclusion. Let's address them here.

"A suspect in Jan. 6 robbery of a bank in Orange County was arrested in Tampa Friday. The Orlando Police Department said David Jefferson Decker, 40, was identified by detectives as the man who entered the TD Bank located at 2859 S. Delaney Avenue in Orlando and gave a note to the teller demanding money. Police said an arrest warrant was obtained and the the US Marshals task force in Tampa arrested him Friday evening.Investigators said Decker will be transported back to Orange County." That was the entire article! IMO, the PSEUDO rule is to prevent articles on people like Decker, not people like Wheeler. Nobody in Germany is calling Decker a Doofen.
 * "Was the person the main focus of relevant coverage? For instance, it is not necessary to include biographies on every person who was present at the Virginia Tech massacre. The event is notable; individual people are not." The Virgina Tech example is helpful IMO. Virginia Tech was not the only school shooting. Wheeler is not the only bank robber. However, Virgina Tech was used as a spring board for wider discussion of the phenomenon of school shootings; as a result we have a substantial article on Seung-Hui Cho. Seung-Hui Cho is notable for multiple events: 1. The shooting and 2. The reaction to it. Similarly, IMO Wheeler is notable for multiple events 1. The robberies and 2. The research of his planning of those robberies. Finally, Wheeler is named specifically in all mentions of the robberies, and is the main focus of all subsequent coverage of those robberies (which is more substantial than is currently included in the article) - since he was the perpetrator and not a spectator of the robberies, he is more notable (right or wrong) than the people in the bank that he robbed. Similarly, VA Tech's coverage in wikipedia does not include an article for every student who attended school the day of the shooting. Contrast Wheeler's coverage in Fuoco or Morris's work, GQ, Telegraph, the BBC, Cognizance, Focus in Germany ("Das Imperium der Doofen", Überall Unfähigkeit und Selbstüberschätzung – US-Psychologen beweisen, dass dahinter ein System steckt!) and a typical Florida bank robbery notification like this one by a Central Florida regional, the Sentinal:
 * "Do any reliable sources cover the individual themselves as a main or sole focus of coverage, or is the person mentioned only in connection with an event or organization?" Multiple reliable sources deal with substantial coverage of McArthur Wheeler. Coverage deals with Wheeler's planning of the crime, his motivation, his education, his family life, his intelligence and Wheeler's subsequent life in prison. These sources include national and regional newspapers, books, and scientific periodicals. Sometimes, these sources use that coverage as a spring board for a larger discussion of human meta cognition. Similarly, many reliable sources that we use on Seung-Hui Cho use a discussion of his planning, education, family life and intelligence as a spring board for a larger discussion of the social problem of random acts of violence. This is not typically seen as justification for dismissal as a Wikipedia source. Wheeler is not mentioned as representative of an organization. Furthermore, Wheeler is mentioned in contexts outside of a single event. Specifically, he is mentioned as representative of people incapable of meta-cognition of competence.
 * "Is the person notable for any other events in their life?" No. This is most likely where the controversy comes from, and I empathize with your concern. However, dismissal of one term of the test is not commonly seen as a reason for complete removal of the piece. Again, let's use Seung-Hui Cho. Other than the Virginia Tech shooting, was Cho involved with any other notable event? Sadly, no - the violence was the only notable part of his life. Still, we saw fit to include him because of the wider social context his actions had.

I hope this helps. Finally, I just wanted to say I appreciate your concerns and while I my not agree they are certainly valid and I appreciate your work on the encyclopedia. Should the article indeed need to be merged I will not be any worse for it. Certainly, I do not own this article or any part of Wikipedia and have no "ax to grind" re: Wheeler; just an interesting bit of information that readers and students might find helpful in their understanding of the history of Psychology. Please let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. Jay Dubya (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Copying and pasting relevant concerns from the other page here:

That's a genuine surprise to learn that he was the inspiration- thanks for correcting me. I don't know why you point out that Wheeler is mentioned in the D-K paper since I've already repeatedly said this myself in the text you are responding to. Do you now accept that it was false to say that Wheeler's exploits "have inspired articles in" the New York Times and New York Post? Are we only talk about one academic journal article or multiple papers? Your original claims still seem to be unsupportable and misleading. For the question of notability, it still seems a very clear case of only being notable for one event. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC) "Do you now accept that it was false to say that Wheeler's exploits "have inspired articles in" the New York Times and New York Post?" No, I am not sure why that would be the case. Wheeler inspired Dunning. Dunning and Wheeler are both covered in depth in the Times, Post and elsewhere. Here are quotes from the NY Post story I believe you are referring to: "Charles Darwin observed that “ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.” That was certainly true on the day in 1995 when a man named McArthur Wheeler boldly robbed two banks in Pittsburgh without using a disguise. Security camera footage of him was broadcast on the evening news the same day as the robberies, and he was arrested an hour later. Mr. Wheeler was surprised when the police explained how they had used the surveillance tapes to catch him. “But I wore the juice,” he mumbled incredulously. He seemed to believe that rubbing his face with lemon juice would blur his image and make him impossible to catch." [...] "The story of McArthur Wheeler was told by social psychologists Justin Kruger and David Dunning in a brilliant paper entitled “Unskilled and Unaware of It.” http://nypost.com/2010/05/23/why-losers-have-delusions-of-grandeur/ Here is GQ Magazine on Wheeler: "In 1995, a criminal called McArthur Wheeler did something stupid: he walked into two banks in Pittsburgh with a gun and demanded money, in full view of the cameras. When police arrested Wheeler that evening, he was incredulous. "But I wore the juice!" he said. Detectives realised that Wheeler believed scrubbing lemon juice on to his face would hide his features on CCTV. When psychologist David Dunning read about Wheeler's story, he was intrigued by one facet: Wheeler was so confident in his abilities, despite his stupidity. Could other people have similar blind spots about their incompetence?" http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/comment/articles/2014-01/10/stupidity-for-dummies Here is Cognizance Magazine on Wheeler: "The story above is from Unskilled and Unaware of It – the psychological study behind the Dunning-Kruger effect. Even though it sounds like a story from D.A.R.E. class, the authors cited Mr. Wheeler’s sober adventure to communicate that incompetent individuals are competent at two things – failing to recognize their shortcomings and overestimating their abilities." Here is the Telegraph on Wheeler: "In 1995, McArthur Wheeler walked into two Pittsburgh banks and robbed them in broad daylight, with no visible attempt at disguise. He was arrested later that night after videotapes of him taken from surveillance cameras were broadcast on the 11 o'clock news. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/4755925/Netlife.html Here are studies and books other than the ones cited that mention Wheeler: There Is an I in Team, Mark De Rond "McArthur Wheeler who, in 1995, robbed two Pittsburgh banks in broad daylight. He had made no visible attempt at disguis. Aided in surveillance tapes, the police were able to arrest him later at night" I can't easily copy+paste these but he is mentioned in the following also: Improving Student Achievement, 2005 Lewis C. Solmon, Kimberly Firetag Agam, Tamara Wingard Schiff Profiling and Serial Crime: Theoretical and Practical Issues, Wayne Petherick Coverage of Wheeler went international and was mentioned in 20 Minutos and in Germany.

I'm trying my best to understand the complaint at this point - I believe you are concerned that Wheeler was non-notable prior to Dunning's work. While prior to Dunning Wheeler was certainly one-issue, I do believe he was noticeable (although of course, less notable). The robberies occurred in 1995, and as a result most of the coverage is in newspapers that are not on the internet. That is one of the reasons why further time is needed for this article; I noted problems with notable references at the beginning of this talk page and what I meant was that most of the information is in newspapers and other non-digital sources. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette wrote multiple front-page stories either devoted to or prominently featuring Wheeler from 1995 to 1997. Here is one of the few that has been digitized (which is separate from the story I cited in the article): http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1129&dat=19960321&id=ZNlRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=DXADAAAAIBAJ&pg=6777,3720310

He was also mentioned in the 1996 Almanac where Dunning found him. Jay Dubya (talk) 18:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I discussed one-event notability on the other page briefly, however let's review the one event test so I can demonstrate why in my view Wheeler passes. -"If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." Reliable sources, as noted ad nauseum in sources above I have not had time to actually add to the article, cover the person in the context of two events: #1 Wheeler's bank robberies #2 Dunning's research inspired by Wheeler

-"If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." IMO Wheeler *was* a high profile individual. It is my hope that his mentions in the sources above and in the article help establish that. The coverage of Wheeler extended from 1995 and has continued through 2012.

-"If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley, Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented." Hinckley is a great example as a one-event person who deserves his own article, and for largely the same reasons as Wheeler. Wheeler's role in the robberies was #1 substantial, as he was the only robber and the inspiration for a high profile and widely-cited research paper and #2 those events were well documented by multiple sources as cited above. Jay Dubya (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

In short, BLP1E says: "Secondly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals." Wheeler is high-profile, as a result BLP1E does not apply. Jay Dubya (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. Feel free to include more material from the Wheeler article in here. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

David Dunning Publicly Cites this Article
http://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2010/07/07/what-the-dunning-kruger-effect-is-and-isnt/comment-page-1/#comment-1555

Good work.

Jay Dubya (talk) 21:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

New article by Dunning on his research program with links to other authors
I saw a new popular article today by David Dunning,

and it does a good job of summing up research on human beings evaluating their own knowledge and competence. I will add this reference immediately to the article as further reading, and then you are very welcome to follow the links in the article to build more references into this Wikipedia article, in collaboration with other editors. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Could someone clarify the SCOPE of the Dunning-Kruger Effect?
The first section of this article is confusing, for me, despite studying this and all linked articles. I can't understand the specific scope of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Is it limited to those people of below average ability?

Does the Dunning-Kruger Effect include BOTH -1- OVER-estimation of one's skills by those of BELOW average ability, AND -2- UNDER-estimation of one's skills by those of ABOVE-average ability?

Or does the Dunning-Kruger include only the former case? Possibly, the latter case is described by "The curse of knowledge"? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_knowledge)    And if not the "The curse of knowledge", what other descriptive term could be used, for the latter case?

More confusion is introduced if you consider the "Impostor Syndrome". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impostor_syndrome)  And, also consider that somehow, some people who lack skills, DO have the ability to recognize that they lack those skills.

Perhaps, someone could write an article, and explain the similarities and differences among the reported effects, in this article "Dunning–Kruger effect", and the articles in the "see also" section? Would it be possible to construct a venn diagram, to clarify the relationships?

68.35.173.107 (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I've started to notice Dunning-Kruger being used as a pejorative
Has anyone else noticed that Dunning-Kruger is being used as a pejorative in online discussions? I've noticed it's often just used as a fancy way of calling people stupid. By my understanding it seems to be an incorrect use of the term. I've already seen one notable celebrity link to this page while using the term to describe his ideological opponents. It seems to be gaining traction, and it could be that this article is contributing to people's misunderstanding. Should we document cases here and add them to the article at some point? AzazelswolfsuperPUAwithacherryontop (talk) 02:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Unless they are cases that satisfy the notability guidelines, no. Jason Quinn (talk) 08:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Title should use a hyphen, not an n-dash
The title of this article should be hyphenated (with -), rather than using an n-dash (–). While I appreciate that someone out there knows there's more than one dash-like character, they used the wrong one. This makes the URL really ugly for some people, and is unlikely to be typed correctly by users looking for this article.

To many users, this appears in the URL as %E2%80%93 instead of –. This just came up in a talk about what not to do on your websites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.241.200.248 (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * See WP:NDASH. Dunning-Kruger effect (with a hyphen) properly links here.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Religious Knowledge
I added religious knowledge to the historical section. Sorry about all the intermediate changes. They were for spelling mistakes and typos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C2:4001:E302:807F:AD1F:FF3:A2F (talk) 22:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have removed your addition as it seems to be original research. No reliable source was cited to show that your examples were regarded by anybody else as examples of the Dunning–Kruger effect. William Avery (talk) 22:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

congratulations
My writing is unusual, please welcome the TomRiddle in a spirit of good humour, even though the consideration is extremely serious.

"A follow-up study, reported in the same paper, suggests that grossly incompetent students improved their ability to estimate their rank after minimal tutoring in the skills they had previously lacked, regardless of the negligible improvement in actual skills.[1]"

This is where I heard about the study, it was used in a mean way https://news.vice.com/article/no-volcanoes-are-not-the-primary-cause-for-the-melting-ice-caps

The modern challenge seems to me to embody within the different fields of human endevour the "follow up study" however in a paradigm of power-with, the sheer understanding of nature-wholeness in whatever context, not the power-over of an objectively considered ranking that is usually-used to make winners and losers, not so much point out the difference.

"A study showed You can only understand for Yourself if I first explain..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.124.17.85 (talk) 13:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Recommend a link to article on the Blub paradox
I recommend adding links between the Wikipedia article on the Blub paradox and the article on the Dunning-Kruger effect. The Blub paradox is a good example of Dunning-Kruger.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Graham_(computer_programmer)#Blub 68.35.173.107 (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC) 68.35.173.107 (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia itself?
Why is there no mention of this site in this article? This whole site is the result of the Dunning–Kruger effect!! The encyclopedia that anybody (ie deranged basement dweller with a POV to make) can edit! Can't believe this article does address this elephant in the room. 5.81.1.23 (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Got a reliable source for that? Banedon (talk) 00:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Anybody can revert too! Dunning edits, Kruger reverts. ~ juanTamad (talk) 07:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey [5.81.1.23] 2003 called, they're wondering where you are.2001:44B8:2175:CD00:98C7:97BE:5502:B845 (talk) 07:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Plato
Plato's Socrates talks about how the artisans tend to assume that because they're competent at their crafts that they are also competent at other things, self-government and the kinds of dialectic that Plato considered true wisdom. 2601:18A:8100:33E0:6167:5CAA:AE97:7674 (talk) 12:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC) Michael Christian

Unjustified revert.
My edit has been reverted (without any explanation), but according to WP:GUIDELINE our articles should be clear, which is exactly what I did. Is "wherein" clearer than "in which", or "much higher than is accurate" than "much higher than it really is"? Is plain English inappropriate for Wikipedia? 85.193.232.158 (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This destructive revert was just mindless vandalism, though in good faith. 85.193.232.158 (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Correction: Of course vandalism is deliberate by definition. 85.193.232.158 (talk) 09:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I think "in which" is an improvement. I'm not sure about the latter. --Ronz (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your support. It was very important to me.
 * Look at Google Books search results:
 * "much higher than it really is"   =>   1,130
 * "much higher than is accurate"   =>


 * "cognitive bias in which"   =>    1870
 * "cognitive bias wherein"   =>     85.193.232.158 (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot to User:Just plain Bill for acceptance of my edits :-) 85.193.232.158 (talk) 09:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Pasting link
PLEASE fix the link. Every time I paste it on social media the other end of the link fails and I get an article about a city named Dunning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.160.165.100 (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Fox News
It should be noted that almost the entirety of Fox News is a shinning real life example of this effect. 83.41.246.36 (talk) 14:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Your punning mis-spelling is noted and applauded. Given FN's apparent objective being to kick common sense around its legs, it's highly appropriate.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:AE26:7CD9:2104:918F:AB76:6FFB (talk) 03:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Order of sentences in first paragraph
I asked JustHelping614 to start a discussion about their repeated edits to change the order of sentences in the article's first paragraph, but apparently they do not wish to do so. I still don't understand from the edit summaries why the change is an improvement, so I have kicked off the discussion myself, rather than reverting yet again.

I did not write the previously stable version myself (shown as "Before" in the table above), but the way I read it is as follows: Sentence 2 says that Dunning and Kruger performed some research, then sentences 3 and 4 discuss their conclusions resulting from that research. It looks like everything is described in the right order. By moving sentence 2 to the end of the paragraph, it now appears that we are discussing the results of the research before saying that the research took place. Also, incidentally, referring to Dunning and Kruger by last names only before introducing them with their first names. It just looks very odd to me, but maybe I'm missing something, so I would be happy if JustHelping614 or anybody else could explain. Thanks. – Wdchk (talk) 19:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Before. Thank you for bringing this up for discussion. I agree with your position, which seems to be a straightforward issue of clear writing. Reify-tech (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Before. Glrx (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The before arrangement fits better with my sense of the inverted pyramid. Just plain Bill (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

do you have any comments? Thanks. – Wdchk (talk) 00:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The date of the research was completely out of place directly in the middle of the paragraph that was explaining the diagnosis to the affliction. JustHelping614 (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)JustHelping614 11/04/2015 – preceding comment moved from User talk:Wdchk by Wdchk, 16:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * since we have an open discussion here on the article's talk page, I have moved your comment here from my talk page. You still haven't really responded to this discussion. You have simply repeated what you already said in an edit summary, that I already said I didn't understand. Specifically, what do you mean by "the paragraph that was explaining the diagnosis to the affliction?" As I have tried to illustrate above, the first paragraph was not about diagnosis; it was saying that Dunning and Kruger performed some research, and then went on to describe the conclusions from the research. In your version, you describe the conclusions before even saying that the research took place. We really do have a consensus view here that the previous version was better, so I should have reverted back to it a long time ago. However, since you are relatively new to Wikipedia, I'll ask you one more time if you have anything new to add to the discussion. If so, please respond here, soon, and address the specific points raised by other editors. Thanks. – Wdchk (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Before
 * I came to this talk page after reading the first paragraph. I was glad to see not only that it was being discussed, but also that a consensus had been reached - to which I added my support. I note that Wdchk requested further comments from JustHelping614 eight weeks ago, but that none has been made during that time despite a continued presence editing elsewhere on WP.


 * It being December 30th, I think the time has come to make the revision in line with the consensus. So that's what I have done; apologies to Wdchk if I have trodden on your toes a little by doing so.
 * I trust that any editor contemplating further edits/reversions of this type to the paragraph will engage discussion here before doing so.Twistlethrop (talk) 04:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

'This American Life' radio segment
The "Dunning-Kruger effect" was explored on a segment of the public radio show "This American Life," with host Ira Glass, which aired on April 22, 2016, titled "In Defense of Ignorance." In the segment, David Dunning was interviewed about his famous experiment by producer Sean Cole. Cole noted that the Dunning-Kruger research showed that "it's not that you're ignorant, and also happen to be over-confident. You're ignorant, and it makes you over-confident." As Cole observed: "When someone asks so how do you think how you did on a test, and you open your mouth to answer, you're drawing on the same skill-set to answer that question that you used to answer the questions on the test." "This is the double curse," said Dunning.

"Sooner or later we all become the poor performers," said Dunning in the interview. "We all have our specific pockets of incompetence. And once we step into our own incompetence, we don't know we've made the step." As Cole observed, "Other people can see when we're doing the Dunning-Kruger dance, be we can't."

"The real sadness, for me," concluded Dunning in the interview, "is that often people are going to suffer for their mistakes, but they're never going to know it. Because if a person is a jerk in the office, what happens is all the parties they aren't invited to; all the wonderful social interactions they just don't get to experience. And it's likely that they don't notice the absence of this. So, you don't know you're incompetent, you can't figure it out on your own, and the world is treating you by being silent. Well, how do you improve yourself under those conditions?"

I removed this section as grossly undue. If anyone can spot something in it that's unique or deserves extra emphasis, maybe it could be included in the article body. --Ronz (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Suggest locking
I just undid two revisions that appear to either be spam links or jokes. A relatively common joke seems to be changing the first sentence to read "The effect is a..."

It's unlikely that valuable edits will be made to this page from anonymous users, so I suggest locking. --72.208.57.164 (talk) 07:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've noticed the recent spam/vandalism too. The procedure for this is to go to Requests for page protection and make a request, there are instructions on that page. --Krelnik (talk) 16:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Graph
It would be interesting to have a graph here, plotting confidence (perceived ability) against actual skills (scored ability). This could be taken from one of the studies. You should be able to understand if the effect is linear and if it is range-limited. Ben T/C 11:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Dash
Dear sirs/madams,

The page title has a dash between two names. That's ludicrous. If you need to connect two names, you use a hyphen. Not an n-dash. What on Earth possessed you to do something so mind-bogglingly absurd?

Yours sincerely,

Anyone with the slightest hint of typographical aptitude — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.136.139 (talk) 07:31 26 May 2016‎
 * MOS:ENDASH: "Use an en dash for the names of two or more entities in an attributive compound: ." – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, if we used hyphens, what would we do when one of the codiscoverers themselves has a hyphenated, double-barrelled surname? Double sharp (talk) 03:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

mention
http://danluu.com/dunning-kruger/ 62.64.152.154 (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

restore earlier problem
The following has been restored as I noticed that JustHelping614 chose to reverse the agreed upon version back in January:

I asked JustHelping614 to start a discussion about their repeated edits to change the order of sentences in the article's first paragraph, but apparently they do not wish to do so. I still don't understand from the edit summaries why the change is an improvement, so I have kicked off the discussion myself, rather than reverting yet again. 1

I did not write the previously stable version myself (shown as "Before" in the table above), but the way I read it is as follows: Sentence 2 says that Dunning and Kruger performed some research, then sentences 3 and 4 discuss their conclusions resulting from that research. It looks like everything is described in the right order. By moving sentence 2 to the end of the paragraph, it now appears that we are discussing the results of the research before saying that the research took place. Also, incidentally, referring to Dunning and Kruger by last names only before introducing them with their first names. It just looks very odd to me, but maybe I'm missing something, so I would be happy if JustHelping614 or anybody else could explain. Thanks. – Wdchk (talk) 19:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Before. Thank you for bringing this up for discussion. I agree with your position, which seems to be a straightforward issue of clear writing. Reify-tech (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Before. Glrx (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The before arrangement fits better with my sense of the inverted pyramid. Just plain Bill (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

do you have any comments? Thanks. – Wdchk (talk) 00:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The date of the research was completely out of place directly in the middle of the paragraph that was explaining the diagnosis to the affliction. JustHelping614 (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)JustHelping614 11/04/2015 – preceding comment moved from User talk:Wdchk by Wdchk, 16:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * since we have an open discussion here on the article's talk page, I have moved your comment here from my talk page. You still haven't really responded to this discussion. You have simply repeated what you already said in an edit summary, that I already said I didn't understand. Specifically, what do you mean by "the paragraph that was explaining the diagnosis to the affliction?" As I have tried to illustrate above, the first paragraph was not about diagnosis; it was saying that Dunning and Kruger performed some research, and then went on to describe the conclusions from the research. In your version, you describe the conclusions before even saying that the research took place. We really do have a consensus view here that the previous version was better, so I should have reverted back to it a long time ago. However, since you are relatively new to Wikipedia, I'll ask you one more time if you have anything new to add to the discussion. If so, please respond here, soon, and address the specific points raised by other editors. Thanks. – Wdchk (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Before
 * I came to this talk page after reading the first paragraph. I was glad to see not only that it was being discussed, but also that a consensus had been reached - to which I added my support. I note that Wdchk requested further comments from JustHelping614 eight weeks ago, but that none has been made during that time despite a continued presence editing elsewhere on WP.


 * It being December 30th, I think the time has come to make the revision in line with the consensus. So that's what I have done; apologies to Wdchk if I have trodden on your toes a little by doing so.
 * I trust that any editor contemplating further edits/reversions of this type to the paragraph will engage discussion here before doing so.Twistlethrop (talk) 04:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Here is the edit, still unexplained and about a month after the discussion here took place.  Mr.choppers &#124;  ✎  21:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

title of article
is there a reference or source for something called "Dunning-Kruger effect"? Otherwise it looks like OR. ps the first part also seems to describe just about every undergraduate. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ref 5, "The Anosognosic's Dilemma..." does. --Ronz (talk) 19:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

East Asia
'''A number of studies on East Asian subjects suggest that different social forces are at play in different cultures. For example, East Asians tend to underestimate their abilities and see underachievement as a chance to improve themselves and to get along with others.''' I suggest whoever wrote this has never worked for a Chinese company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.29.24.164 (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

It totally sounds like Japanese culture, though. Tabbycatlove (talk) 03:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Add famous quotations that support the idea?
Probably it would be illustrative of the fact that the notion precedes the study to add the famous quotation by Bertrand Russell

''The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt. Even those of the intelligent who believe that they have a nostrum are too individualistic to combine with other intelligent men from whom they differ on minor points. This was not always the case.''

 --Godot (talk) 09:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Search the past discussions to check, but I believe the consensus is that we shouldn't do so to avoid WP:OR/WP:NOT problems unless we have a reliable source that makes the connection between D-K and the quote. --Ronz (talk) 16:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * At first I was like :D [whoop!], but then I was like :| [trudat]. I think Ronz-iz-rite, but I so want Rodolfo's idea to be explored for some form of adjacent/juxtaposed project! P.S. The emdash in the URL is utterly un-pragmatic, and makes the URL 8 characters longer than it needs to be and nearly impossible to memorize. I'm thankful that the dash redirects properly. Sadsaque (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Ironically, the article already has a full section about exactly this ("Historical antecedents"), all sourced to secondary commentators who draw direct comparison to Dunning-Kruger and including one from Bertrand Russell. --McGeddon (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * How about including the socratic paradox? It easily predates the other European versions (but not Confucius) and is to my mind more memorable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_that_I_know_nothing 130.183.100.115 (talk) 10:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * If you can source it to a secondary commentator who draws a direct comparison to Dunning-Kruger, sure. If you can't, we shouldn't include it - a "that reminds me of a quote I heard" section would be WP:OR, and could easily drift into including unchecked bad examples (like the suggested Wizard of Oz quote below, which seems to be describing the opposite of the Dunning-Kruger effect). --McGeddon (talk) 08:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

From The Scarecrow of Oz, one of the sequels to The Wizard of Oz: "Seems to me, Trot, as how the more we know, the more we find we don't know....Those as knows the least have a habit of thinkin' they know all there is to know, while those as knows the most admits what a turr'ble big world this is. It's the knowing ones that realize one lifetime ain't long enough to git more'n a few dips of the oars of knowledge." HandsomeMrToad (talk) 02:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Not sure how, but would love to have a way to link this video in the article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU Oathed (talk) 12:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump
There is an edit war ongoing whether to include a reference to Donald Trump or not. Could people, please, stop reverting each other's edits, and solve the issue here?

I do not have any definite opinion myself. There is no lack of references of Trump and Dunning-Kruger. Just google for it. On the other hand, I do not see what this article would gain with a link. --Mlewan (talk) 07:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

My opinion is that this article is for the concept rather than any particular examples, however fitting. AHusain3141 (talk) 08:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Cliff Clavin
Editors are discussing whether or not Cliff Clavin should be a link in the "See also" section.

Here are some thoughts: Taken altogether, I'm inclined to not include the link, for my part. Herostratus (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There is reference, Here: "This would seem a textbook example of the Dunning-Kruger effect... Kasich is the Cliff Claven of politics, delusional about his own place at the table."
 * But that is just a blog, albeit under the aegis of American Thinker. The writer (Patricia McCarthy) doesn't have an article here. She doesn't really directly say "Cliff Claven is an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect", and it's a passing reference, not showing that she's really sat down and given a lot of thought over whether Clavin actually is a good example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
 * But Clavin is a know-it-all, no doubt.
 * But while we're at it, wouldn't know-it-all maybe be a better link and more directly bearing on the subject? After all, Cliff Clavin is kind of long and mostly contains material that doesn't bear on the subject (nor is "Dunning–Kruger effect" even mentioned in that article), it kind of maybe leads the reader away from the subject into material about a TV show and who played what character and so forth.
 * The "See also" section is kind of long, with 16 entries.
 * Clavin is a fictional character on a TV show which was once very popular, but ended in 1993 (but then was popular for a while in syndication, but even that run basically ended a while back). As time goes on this reference is going to grow more and more obscure.
 * But he is still pretty well-known, among older people.
 * And examples can be a good learning tool: "Oh, like Clavin, now I get it!"
 * But "See also" links are not exactly supposed to be "here's some examples". They are supposed to be "read this article, and you'll learn more about the subject" and I'm skeptical that reading Cliff Clavin is going to teach me much more about the Dunning–Kruger effect. I suppose it might.

Here's a couple more referenced I found online, at least to confirm its a well-known public association. I've probably seen more memes based on him in the last 10 years than I've watched Cheers in the last 20. Tom Ruen (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 1)  However, sure as that know-it-all Cliff Clavin bellied up to the bar at “Cheers”, there’s someone right now talking out of his butt about something of which he knows virtually nothing. A Cornell University study along those lines was released in 1999, resulting in “Dunning-Kruger Effect” entering our national lexicon.
 * 2)  Dr. David Dunning of Cornell University that seeks to explain how individuals of little knowledge and less understanding can rise to positions of prominence locally and nationally. He explains that by reference to the "Dunning-Kruger Effect," first described in 1999 with his colleague, Dr. Justin Kruger. ... The reason Cliff Clavin (of Cheers fame) was so funny as a character is that he was the embodiment of this effect.

I agree that an example (or several) for those "Oh, like _____, now I get it!" moments would be a good idea. I'm just not convinced that Cliff Clavin would be a textbook example and if he was that he belonged in the see also section. A section for "fictional characters exhibiting Dunning–Kruger effect" with scholarly citations I would not have a problem with. - Scarpy (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Links to Authors
I linked the first occurrences of the authors' names to the appropriate Wikipedia articles (currently there is no article for Justin Kruger but I put in the link in case it is added). 81.140.181.108 (talk) 09:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

flaws remain fundamental
First, I want to say that while I have strong political views, I am grateful for those who held firm against using this article as nothing more than a gussied-up self-righteous tu quoque, an appeal to hypocrisy and "a special case of the ad hominem fallacy". I find such attempts intellectually disgusting.

Back to topic. While I enjoy reading this article, it does show some self-serving biases, presenting objective information in such a way as to manufacture authority. The "persuasion" statements begin quite early: The phenomenon was first observed ... in 1999 is blatant overreach considering the penultimate section pointing up multiple clear precedents, which cites no less than Russell, Darwin, Shakespeare, and Confucius (d. 479 BC). That such persuasion was the intent (perhaps unconsciously) is to me proven by citing two published papers of Dunning and Kruger rather than some (objective?) other party awarding the accolade.

Rather than "first observed," better phrasing would be on the order of that near-final section's "formulated in," though even that doesn't satisfy me. Superlatives such as "first" (or any other claims to primacy or originality) probably ought be avoided. Perhaps D-K give it a sort of independent life on the order of Murphy's Law, an epigram or adage oraphorism. Still, THAT would have to be a status granted NOT by Dunning or Krueger OR some Wikipedia editor.

Like an auditor spotting a single gross falsehood on a ledger, this sort of wild nonsense makes me want to look MUCH more closely at everything else. Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Can you clarify what you are trying to talk about? Or are you offering a contemporary example of manufacturing outrage? --Epipelagic (talk) 18:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Lead and body do not agree
Lead suggests this is about cognitive, i.e. intelligence versus stupidity, but the body makes it clear that this is about knowledge, experience, wisdom, education, skill, versus ignorance. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Weasel words?
See edit summary in this diff, and others around that time in the revision history.

What, specifically, have been the weasel words in this article? Just plain Bill (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * A reply

Dear Just Plain Bill, if you have to ask, then you are, indeed, out of your league. The “Harvard” of the Midwest failed you. Non the less, thanks for the entertainment.

Regards,

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 01:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, since we're trotting out pedigrees, Charles, I went to the "Harvard" of Harvard, and from what I can see it's you who's out of his league. If you can contribute something constructive here about changes to the article, please do so; if not, then please move on. "Non" the less, thanks for the entertainment.


 * Regards,


 *  E Eng  01:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, EEng. Caltrop, that was a juvenile outburst. Is that the way you want to present yourself in a discussion of your edits? Just plain Bill (talk) 01:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * It was a fair question that did not merit the uncivil response, Chas. Caltrop. WP:CIVILITY is a policy on Wikipedia, so consider yourself warned. Do better. El_C 06:59, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Returning to the question, which is appropriate, I guess Chas meant "most studies" was a weasel word. But actually "most" is pretty accurate and not as weaselly as "usually". --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * "Most studies" is not weasel at all if it was in fact "most studies". I also, must be out of Chas. Caltrop's splendid league since I see nothing in his edit that removed weasel. Neither do I understand what he imagines is the big joke is here. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

--
 * Reset

With the indulgence of everyone who has participated so far, I'd like to rephrase my question, obviously a rhetorical one inviting Chas. Caltrop to expand on his often laconic edit summaries. While I generally prefer terseness over walls of text, now could be a good time for considered verbosity.

What, specifically, have been the weasel words in this article, and what, in particular, have been the npov issues with the article? I am interested in Caltrop's views on this. Of course, this being a wiki article talk page, all good-faith input is welcome. Thanks, Just plain Bill (talk) 11:56, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * It's best to avoid generalization like "most", even if they're supportable. There's always a hint of WP:OR in the air when such constructions are used, because it's not likely that any editor of gaggle of editors reviewed reliable source, and are just making an assumption, albeit often a reasonable one. It is best to cite an actual literature review and quote it for any "most" claims about research matters.  In the absence of one, it's better encyclopedia writing to simply devote text to the material that represents the real-world consensus viewpoint, with lots of citation, and then conclude (if pertinent to include it at all) with the contrary view, noted as contrary, and citing the particular source it comes from, without dwelling on it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)