Talk:Tinkerbell effect

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mchoe52.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Electoral Tinkerbell Effect
Rob Ford, professor of politics at Manchester University, suggests that in a first-past-the-post electoral system (as in the UK) a new party can beat the two main established parties if enough people believe that the new party can win. “Think of it as the electoral ‘Tinkerbell effect’ — if people believe new parties can win, then that belief becomes self-fulfilling. If people cease to believe the old parties are unbeatable, they become beatable.”

I wonder if this should be added to the main article.

Miracleman
This same term is recycled in Alan Moore's Miracleman to describe a sparkling effect that sometimes accompanies MM's superhuman activities. Very likely a knowingly ironic recycling, too, considering Moore's approach to fiction as modern mythology, another thing that exists only for so long as people care to believe in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asat (talk • contribs)

Power of the vote
when has the tinkerbell effect ever been used to define the power of the vote? If we can't find a citation for this (or anything else on this page for that matter), then it needs to be deleted. KrewBay 01:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I searched for the word "vote" in the external link mentioned. I didn't find it. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MqLJ/2004/7.html. It seems to me that the power to vote as a tinkerbell effect would be a subjective call. jlam 15:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Redirect
Maybe this page should just redirect to self-fulfilling prophecy. -CN

Deities?.
I don't think you should add everything people believe as an example for Tinkerbell effect, since theists claim there IS evidence of the existence of God. 200.127.210.191 (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Oversimplification of consensus reality.
What we believe in,doesn't means its delusion.States exist through organizational hierarchy,religions have fixed scripture,rule of law is maintained through law enforcement.TInkerbell is imaginary,fictional character MidNiteNeko 08:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Consensus is dependent upon belief. Another factor, consent, can be compelled through conformity. Pendragon39 (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Reverse tinkerbell effect and possible references
I found mention of Reverse TE here: http://www.volokh.com/2003_01_26_volokh_archive.html Essentially a request was made for a name to describe certain phenomena, and the one chosen was submitted by a Patrick Hynes. This covers the effect of beliefs on voting, accident rates, and travel destinations.

The tinkerbell effect is mentioned here: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MqLJ/2004/7.html http://nochildleft.com/2006/oct06tinkerbell.html

Perhaps more significantly, is 'invented' by Frank H. Durgin here: http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/fdurgin1/publications/JoCS_Durgin2002.pdf

So we have links referencing the possible use of a term or meme and the spawning of new memes, and a link to an article where someone invents the term. Is the last link acceptable for a reference, or is it original research? Are the interpretations of Frank Durgin's thesis acceptable for inclusion on Wikipedia? Is Frank Durgin's use of the term a tidbit derived from a moment in pop culture? Pendragon39 (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Claimed cases needs clarification
The "Claimed cases" is extremely unhelpful. Each of those items should describe why it is claimed (or how it can be argued) that they incorporate the tinkerbell effect. Simply listing them is useless. Fresheneesz (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Claimed cases
This article needs some clean-up, and I'll be doing that in the next few weeks. But first a few questions for those who may have been watching this article longer than me -- Aren't some of these "claimed cases" nonsensical? After all, my belief or not in some sort of God has no bearing on whether or not one exists. It's not the same as believing in a fiat currency, because believing in that gives it real (psychological, at least) value. If no one wants to provide a good rationale for each one of these, or at least source them properly, I'll be deleting the sillier ones soon. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 23:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Vsauce
Interesting spike in Tinkerbell effect article viewership beginning on 2013.04.23, the day the Vsauce video lecture was first posted. Ijon Tichy x2 (talk) 02:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion
The primary source is, as noted, a scholarly paper where the author seems to be making a joke. As the likely origin of the term, that hardly counts as an outside source. (As an aside, the link to that paper is dead too, if this fails I'll replace it with a new one). It seems pretty clear that "Tinkerbell Effect" is a silly phrase that some people use to mean "the belief that wishes become reality". The entire content of the article seems to have been invented out of whole cloth (it's certainly not in either of the source links) aside from the tautological statement "society exists because we created a society". "Claimed cases"? Claimed by whom? When? Where? Examples of the Tinkerbell effect? According to whom? Stewart didn't mention any of those, and some random blogger doesn't even count as a source in a high school English class. I'd be all for improving the article with proper sources, but these don't seem to exist - merely the original paper and a number of blogs using it as an example. Furthermore, even if all of the content in the article were specifically mentioned in Stewart's paper, that still wouldn't be enough to justify this article, as it's his original research (which in this context means a metaphor he found amusing one day). Additionally, having half of the article discussing the "reverse Tinkerbell effect" is simply ludicrous. Should we devote equal space in the Dunning-Kruger effect article to a discussion of people who have high capabilities, but judge them to be lower than they actually are? Of course not, as DK is a well-documented and sourced article, where this article exists only because people keep clapping their hands. To summarize, while the original article is interesting reading, this article might work better on TVTropes. (Yes, I'm kind of annoyed by this article) Spaig (talk) 07:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Frank Durgin's Tinkerbell Effect
This source shows up in different places while searching:



As far as I can tell it has nothing to do with the Tinkerbell Effect described in this article, they coincidentally have the same name. -- Green  C  05:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Good catch on those other links, I would never have found them on my own! I'm still not entirely convinced this needs its own page, but at least it has proper sources now. I'll re-write it given their content and see what shakes out. Spaig (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

EDIT: After reading these new sources (and a few others that weren't linked), I'm still convinced that this isn't a topic for Wikipedia. None of the examples besides "the rule of law" have any form of proper source, and even that one only counts if you accept the premise of the paper. The "tinkerbell effect", as far as I can tell, is a trope. It's a relatively nebulous concept with a cute name tacked onto it that appears in various places in real life and in fiction. None of the actual sources refer to it as an actual phenomenon, but rather as a metaphor to make a separate point. There's just.. nothing here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaig (talk • contribs) 17:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well things don't need to be actual phenomenon or even have fixed definitions, per WP:GNG they just need to have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. That is why there is a multiple POV rule to allow for nebulous concepts used in different ways in different contexts. Not saying you are wrong or can't nominate it for deletion but the notability rules seem to have some support for the topic. --  Green  C  17:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough - and thanks for your patience with a new editor. I'm nominating it as we speak :D Spaig (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Additions
I'm a student currently taking a course on the social effects of digital information/information tools. One of our big projects is to become a contributing member on Wikipedia. Specifically, we needed to pick a stub article to make a significant contribution to. For mine, I thought this article could be more useful to readers by including different ways the expression could be applied for a wider understanding of its definition.

Tinkerbell Effect in Motion Perception
In the Journal of Consciousness Studies, Frank H. Durgin applies this expression to the study of human motion detection and perception in his paper "The Tinkerbell Effect: Motion Perception and Illusion". He questions the common belief that visual consciousness is a direct translation of the information the visual sensory organs collect. He argues that “perceptual awareness pretends to have access to more information than is actually available to visual cognition”. He relates his argument about the indirectness in motion perception to how, in the play version of Peter Pan, Tinkerbell’s revival depends on the live audience expressing their belief in fairies through clapping. The Tinkerbell effect points out a significant flaw in the brain’s system of receiving and interpreting visually available information: it is not directly representative of reality. With the overwhelming amount of sensory information, the brain summarizes it by filling in what it cannot make sense of. In other words, it is an act of imagination.

Tinkerbell Effect in Education Reform
David C Paris uses this expression to explain the inconsistency in national education reform. While reform may be set nationally, it tends to varies depending on the school and how they manipulate it to suit their current education system. Even though reforms are intended to impact schools, often times, schools change reforms. Education reform can be complicated because the nature of change works from inside the institutions - driven by teachers, students, and administrators alike - out. There is also not “right” way to create a better school. There is no set curriculum or teaching style that guarantees a school’s successful reform. Rather, some schools are seen to succeed because there is widely shared and rooted belief that their unique system works. This culture of belief affects all the critical influencers on the inside, where change can begin and develop. If the school’s teachers believe the work they are doing is special and valuable, the students may likely believe that as well.

In this application, hard work is equivalent to the claps of Peter Pan’s live audience. If an institution is more confident in their methods, by having effective teachers who promote clear goals and pay personal attention to their students, it is more likely to receive the “claps” needed for its continued success. Similar to how Tinkerbell’s life depended on the audience’s belief in her, school’s depend on this belief culture to survive. While this culture of belief in education appears to be beneficial, it cannot be standardized among all schools.

Reverse Tinkerbell Effect and Global Pandemic
The Coronavirus pandemic would make an effective illustration of the Reverse Tinkerbell Effect. The more people believe in the danger presented by the virus, the more likely they will take precautions that, in effect, make the virus less dangerous. Matt Montag (talk) 01:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)