Talk:Information deficit model

"The model implies that communication should focus on improving the transfer of information from experts to non-experts"
The last sentences in the first paragraph reads, "It is associated with a division between experts who have the information and non-experts who do not. The model implies that communication should focus on improving the transfer of information from experts to non-experts." The improvement that the model implies, however is a two way street, not just a “transfer” from expert to non expert. Rather it should focus on “transfer” and “receptiveness” “between” experts and non experts. The way it reads currently implies that public feedback or involvement isn’t an important part of the solution to the deficit model and instead the solution is through force feeding them information, when in actuality it calls for more open communication. So we propose the last sentence reads. “The model implies that communication should focus on improving the transfer and reception of information between experts and non-experts.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by OKaija (talk • contribs) 18:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * For information to be transferred, it needs to be both sent and received, so I don't think that adding "and reception" really helps. However, you do hint at a problem that many people in "public understanding of science" have, i.e. they concentrate on the sending and ignore the receiving.  To continue your example, we could focus on improving peoples receptiveness to scientific information.  Doing so requires more than just transferring information.  This is one of the flaws that those who coined the term "information deficit model" were trying to highlight.  Yaris678 (talk) 12:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The sentence in question is missing the emphasis on the information being received, therefore a better way to rewrite it could be "It is associated with a division between experts who have the information and non-experts who do not. The model implies that communication should focus on improving the transfer of information from experts to non-experts, and that it is fully understood."Seajay9 (talk) 06:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed Merger with Knowledge Deficit
This article seems to be discussing the same topic as Knowledge deficit under a different name. I propose a merger to this article as it is older and more complete. 2001:630:12:10C0:D511:7D76:81CC:8B89 (talk) 13:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge - I agree. They are covering the same topic.  This article is more complete and better written.  Yaris678 (talk) 11:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge - I agree too. The information defcit article is better and they are describing the same phenomenon under slightly different names. ChameleonsTongue (talk) 12:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge - I also agree. I like this article better, but I like that Knowledge deficit introduces the concept of "framing" and provides low-information rationality as an alternative theory. JCMPC (talk) 17:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed and ✅ Klbrain (talk) 12:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Information deficit model. 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/20071214083000/http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/governingatthenanoscale to http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/governingatthenanoscale

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)