Talk:Information cascade

numbers in the example
The numbers in the example do not have an obvious reason; why are people right 2/3 of the time? why will everyone get eaten at least 1 out of 10 times?
 * Yeah, that's the nature of examples. You take any numbers you like and demonstrate your point using those. In my opinion, the factidate template can savely be removed. Drahflow 19:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

This person attempted to quote the example at http://www.info-cascades.info/ and failed. 68.255.166.119 21:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I've surgically removed the attempt to quote the example to improve readability. If the original reference is still valuable, I hope someone else can quote or reference it more cleanly. 16:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.125.144.16 (talk)

People are rational? Really? Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence; I do not see any evidence for this claim, extraordinary or otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.116.45.160 (talk) 05:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Article Review
This article is somewhat turstworthy, somewhat biased, a little complete, a little well-written,and somewhat accurate. This article is quite turstworthy, quite biased, a little complete, a little well-written,and somewhat accurate. I have two comments on this article. First, I'm a bit confused by the hybrid seed corn example, as this is one of the prototypical examples of Innovation diffusion. Perhaps this should be listed in the "See also section". Second, the term information cascade has been applied recently in other settings. Perhaps a noting of this might improve the clarity of the article. Kjoseph17 (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Before nominating again...
Please fully source the article at the VERY least. --LauraHale (talk) 08:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, some more citations would help, but this article has come a long way in a short time. Keep up the good work! TroyandAbedintheMorning (talk) 02:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

disagreement with user:LauraHale
user:LauraHale deleted a large fraction of new material added to this article without justification. I have not gone over every detail of her reverts, but I can see that she threw out some good material, making the material that remained incomprehensible. The "Qualitative Example" section is a case in point. The previous version had a illustration of an information cascade taken from a peer-reviewed and highly cited article on the topic; the original article is referenced. The illustration should help a general reader understand what an information cascade is and how its existence is demonstrated in experimental, economics research. However user:LauraHale eviscerated this section, leaving only a single sentence that doesn't make sense in isolation. Her only comments was to cite WP:TNT.

I would revert user:LauraHale's reverts, but I'm not sure what this would do to the contributions editors made afterwards. So I've done nothing and hope more experienced Wikipedians will know what to do. Robertekraut (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I too wish I understood why it was thrown out, not re-edited - did she have a fundamental problem with the material or simply kill it because it was poorly written? Maybe it's a good thing it looked awkward, otherwise I wouldn't have checked the revision history. I'm glad she didn't toss the citation completely, too - that might be a sign that she wanted another user to take a crack at paraphrasing the experiment. It could use a rewrite, but I haven't read the cited article. I might try to get my hands on it.(Elustran (talk) 06:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC))

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Information cascade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713060849/http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/atheoryoffads.pdf to http://www.irvinehousingblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/atheoryoffads.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Information cascade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100616042143/http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv26n4/v26n4-2.pdf to http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv26n4/v26n4-2.pdf
 * Added tag to http://research.ivo-welch.info/palgrave.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090408212658/http://www.soc.iastate.edu/extension/presentations/publications/comm/Diffusion%20Process.pdf to http://www.soc.iastate.edu/extension/presentations/publications/comm/Diffusion%20Process.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:06, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Re-write of the Qualitative example section?
I've read the Qualitative example section several times and still have no idea how this exercise works. Are the "balls" and the "marbles" the same thing, or are there both balls and marbles? What does it mean that a marble "belongs to" an urn?

Could someone who understands the qualitative example please re-write this section, perhaps having it reviewed by a lay person?

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment supported by  the Wikipedia Ambassador Program.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)