Talk:Dunning–Kruger effect/Archive 6

Discussion after GAN review
I'm sorry about the outcome but thanks for your detailed feedback. I've tried to implement many of your suggestions but there is still some work to be done. I've responded to some of your points below. Your feedback here may be helpful to further improve the article. If some of the changes I made so far are not what you had in mind then please let me know. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Concerning the images: these graphs are not copied from the sources. Instead, their data is reproduced in new graphs. I don't think that the data itself is copyrighted so this shouldn't be a problem.
 * Concerning the graph with mount stupid and other popular misconceptions: I would be happy to include a discussion of them if you know of a reliable source on that issue. But there is not much we can do without a reliable source. There are various talk page discussions with the same conclusion, for example, Talk:Dunning–Kruger_effect.
 * Concerning the terms "account" and "approach": The term "account" is used in the reliable sources itself, for example, as the "dual-burdon account". To me, the term "approach" sounds fine but I'm not sure whether it is commonly used in the reliable sources so I changed it.
 * Concerning NPOV: This seems to apply mainly to the section "Explanation". In order to rewrite it, it would be helpful to get a better understanding of what exactly you mean here. I'm sure there are a few expressions that might be improved but I see no serious overall bias.
 * Concerning the section title "Popular recognition": I didn't get your point here. What title would you suggest?
 * Like I said, I'm not a copyright expert, but that seems dubious to me. The images are virtually identical to the ones in the sources, and I'll note that Dunning (2011) felt the need to say "Adapted with permission." Let's ask someone who is more knowledgable when it comes to copyright matters than I am. Ping : if I remember correctly (and going by your userpage, it would appear so), this is one of your areas of expertise.The sourcing requirements for saying that people incorrectly believe that the Dunning–Kruger effect means XYZ are fairly low, much lower than the requirements for saying things about the actual Dunning–Kruger effect. This is not a particularly high-quality source, but it is probably reliable enough about what laypeople mistakenly think the Dunning–Kruger effect is.On wording, I'll just say that Wikipedia is tailored to a much broader audience than our sources, and we should avoid being too technical or "jargon-y" in our phrasings when it is not necessary to use such language for precision (sometimes the distinction between velocity and speed matters, for instance).The NPOV issues in the "Explanations" section are somewhat better now, but there is still stuff like But even proponents of this explanation agree that this does not explain the empirical findings in full. which is pretty clearly taking a side. Restructuring the section to discuss the different explanations separately in the manner I suggested above would probably go a long way towards achieving neutrality.As for "Popular recognition", it could perhaps be renamed simply "Recognition" or the Ig Nobel Prize mentioned elsewhere in the article (there is no "History" section at present, but if there were it could be mentioned there). The point is that we don't want people to add "In episode X of television series Y, character Z refers to the Dunning–Kruger effect when [...]". TompaDompa (talk) 10:33, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The images look okay to keep in my opinion. Simple numerical data can't be copyrighted, and the graphs were created by Wikipedians. We do have a specific noticeboard for media questions, at Media copyright questions, so if you would like to get another opinion, that would be a good place to go. — Diannaa (talk) 11:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying the issue. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:46, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Good to know, thank you very much. I have been looking for somewhere to bring up issues like this more generally, I just never found that one. Is there an equivalent for text—possible WP:Close paraphrasing and whatnot? WP:Copyright problems doesn't really seem like the right place for questions/discussion. TompaDompa (talk) 11:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You could try Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems but occasionally I've seen questions go unanswered there for a long time. General rules are as follows: Under current copyright law, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. So please always assume that all text you find online or in print sources is copyright. Exceptions include works of the US Government and material specifically released under license. Even then, proper attribution is required. — Diannaa (talk) 12:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * One more piece of general feedback that I forgot to clarify explicitly in my review: take care not to go beyond what the sources say or engage in any WP:ANALYSIS thereof. It's easy to do accidentally when one is familiar with/knowledgable about the topic, but it constitutes WP:Original research. TompaDompa (talk) 11:59, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added a short discussion of the popular misconception. Thanks for looking up this source. It's not the best one but I hope it is sufficient for the job. You suggested getting a handful of review articles. Do you know of any that provide a detailed discussion of the different explanations? I'll keep the term "dual-burden" account since this is the specific term. But I'll see what I can do about the other mentions of "account". Did any other unnecessarily difficult terms catch your eye? I moved the sentence on the ig nobel price to the section "Practical significance" and renamed it to "Significance". This is not the perfect solution but I don't think the sentence fits well in any of the other sections. I'll keep your advice on WP:OR in mind. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:08, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

To quip or not to quip
Thanks for the feedback on the quip. The question is whether the following sentence should be included in the section "Definition": Dunning expressed this lack of awareness in his quip, "the first rule of the Dunning-Kruger club is you don't know you're in the Dunning-Kruger club".. I don't think it is required to understand the text. But I see it as a nice and interesting addition. Many sources quote this quip.

As a side note: I picked this line as a hook for the current DYK nomation. I put the nomination on hold since hooks can only be used if their claims are actually found in the article. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:48, 26 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Sorry to put your nomination on hold. The article is shaping up well.  My reaction to the quip is WTF does that mean?  What does being in the DK club mean?  Does it mean that you are a condescending prick that is sure that they are smarter than everybody else? Does it mean Dunning is admitting that he not a comedy writer?  Is Dunning being self-depreciating or is he saying, (wink), (wink), I'm smarter that you?  No matter what you think it means, do you have a RS that says what Dunning means?  It is not obvious at all how this quip should be interpreted.  I consider myself somewhat informed on this subject, I cannot tell what the quip means.  What do you think the uniformed reader will conclude?  I think that Dunning was just being cute instead of profound.  I think that the quip serves no purpose to enlighten the reader about the subject of the article and should thus be dropped. Constant314 (talk) 11:52, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The apparent meaning is "If you are unskilled and unaware of it, you don't know that you are unskilled and unaware of it." Which is a bit tautological, granted. TompaDompa (talk) 12:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * In the context of particular skills, the source says: ... the Dunning-Kruger effect tells us ... that ignorant people .... are too ignorant to appreciate their own ignorance. As has been said "The first rule of the Dunning-Kruger club is you don't know you're in the Dunning-Kruger club". To me, it sounded straightforward. But we don't need to use it if it is likely to confuse or offend readers. The DYK nomination is not an issue, we can just use another hook. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:29, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It is a nice hook, but it is kind of snarky. To me it is a quip that could mean almost anything, but in context, you could infer the meaning.  A GA article should not require an inference by the reader to make sense of the article. Constant314 (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't say I agree with your objection. I don't think it's cryptic at all as long as it's presented in context, which it was. It was even glossed. TompaDompa (talk) 12:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We could add an explanatory footnote, something like: In this context, to be a member of the Dunning-Kruger club means to belong to the group of low performers that overestimate their ability. This way, if the quip is not clear to some readers, they have additional context to rely on. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:07, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you sure it doesn't mean that you are in a group of high performers that underestimate their performance? I mean that in all seriousness. Constant314 (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. That's a nonsensical reading in the context the cited source presents it. TompaDompa (talk) 22:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks everybody for the respectful discussion. I have had my say and I won't revert the material anymore. However, I would close with saying that I don't think the quip is encyclopedic. I don't think that it belongs in this GA (might be fine in an article about Dunning). If, however, it is to be included, then the explanation should also be included (again, why would we have a statement in a GA that requires a side explanation), and the explanation should be attributed to and paraphrased from a WP:RS. Constant314 (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that it needs an explanation if it is to be included (though I think simply placing it in the proper context can be explanation enough). This is the kind of thing I might put in a quote box with explanatory text along the lines of "[person who said it], commenting on [the necessary context]" (see e.g. Neptune in fiction and George Griffith). I noticed however that while the article attributed this to David Dunning, the cited source doesn't. could you perhaps clarify this discrepancy? TompaDompa (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with the statement from about it being un-encyclopedic. It may be fun but we should not go out of our way to fit it a quip into a GA. Bruxton (talk) 00:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The "we cannot include any humor in Wikipedia even if relevant and properly attributed" killjoys are at it again here. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, my spy network has alerted me and I'm already on the case. Stand by. EEng 01:12, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a bit depressing. It is not a particularly complex quip, it's pretty funny, but thinking it necessary to explain and diagram it destroys it entirely. Unless, of course, this entire discussion is some kind of four-dimensional chess game and I am too dull-witted to grasp the refinement of the running joke.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  03:18, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I found Dunning himself saying it, right after he give the equivalent idea more prosaically. Perfect for a boxed quote, and a great example of how a bit of drollery helps the reader grasp and retain a key idea.No note or explanation re Fight Club is needed, because the meaning is reasonably apparent to those unaware of the F.C. reference, even if it strikes them as a somewhat odd formulation. Those aware of F.C. will, of course, get a smile for free in the bargain. EEng 06:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking up the interview. The quotebox is an elegant solution. The sentences before the quip are sufficient to setup the context so no additional explanation should be needed. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. It now makes sense without requiring guessing by the reader.  My primary complaint has been addressed satisfactorily.  Glad you could keep the hook. <b style="color: #4400bb;">Constant314</b> (talk) 07:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Platypus in Geelong.jpg You'll get my bill. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 07:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You can deduct it from next year's dues. <b style="color: #4400bb;">Constant314</b> (talk) 14:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)