Talk:Yuval Shahar/Archive 1

Request edit on 9 March 2018
Please add the following reference http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0192213 to the end of this sentence: of PSC problems, adding group members increases the probability of converging to a correct solution in NPC problems, while actually reducing the probability of convergence in PSC problems. [HERE: Amir et al., 2018]. Thank youZahira Cohen (talk) 13:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Reply 09-MAR-2018
The claim statement that this reference sourced has been removed for being insufficiently paraphrased.      Spintendo       15:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Request edit on 10 March 2018
Two paragraphs (sections) have been removed, which IMHO need to stay:

The first short section had described Shahar's contributions to individual patient decision making, based on patient preferences [utility functions] and a shared decision-making process, in particular in the genetic consultation domain, which grows in importance every year, as the prevalence and availability of genetic tests increases, due to the results of the Human Genome project;

The second short section had described Prof. Shahar's contributions to a generalized theory of Group Decision Making, which explains several known paradoxes in the literature (especially between the popular Wisdom of the Masses versus the multiple faults of groups making strategic decisions). A recent PLOS ONE reference that I had suggested for addition at the end of the paragraph further substantiates that contribution.

I think the first short section, which concerns personal clinical decision making, complements well the current first five sections, which focus on Shahar's work in automated interpretation of patient data and on the provision of automated support to guideline-based (evidence-based) care to patients and to their care providers. Thus, I believe it should be put back.

I think the second short section adds a valuable aspect of Shahar's work that will be of interest to multiple Wikipedia readers, and that cannot be implied in any way from any of the previous sections: It stands on its own. Thus, I believe it should be put back as well, including the suggested recent reference.

If the two original sections are considered unduly long, they can probably be shortened, while containing the gist of their informative material.

Reply 16-MAR-2018

 * 1) A portion of the removed material was excised because it was copied and pasted from other texts without proper attribution (see WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE).
 * 2) Other portions of text were removed because they were unreferenced. Everything placed in Wikipedia must be verifiable by being directly attributed to a reliable source.
 * 3) Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Articles should not become a complete exposition of all possible details, but rather, a  of accepted knowledge regarding their subjects.
 * 4) These removals of text are in no way meant to impugn the important work of the article's subject. Your close connection to the subject merely places your additions to the article under a conflict of interest, which brings an added sense of caution from the editor community to ensure the upholding of community standards.
 * Regards,      Spintendo       21:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Request edit on 16 March 2018
Thank you for you answer. I offer here alternative text with references [the numbers here are the same references as the original references]: Personal Decision Making in Medicine:

Shahar has had a long-standing interest in supporting the decisions of individual patients by enabling them to incorporate their personal preferences in the decision-making process. In the early 1990s He initiated at Stanford the PANDA project, which used decision-analytic techniques to assist couples who are undergoing genetic consultation, in making the best decision, customized for the parents’ preferences.[67][68] A significant theoretical contribution of the PANDA project, which had won the best student paper award in the Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI-98) conference, was the formulation of the problem of acquiring the patients’ preferences as a machine-learning problem.[69] Shahar continued his work on shared decision making at BGU with his student Segal, creating the PANDEX Web-based framework for providing support to parents facing prenatal diagnostic decisions, including an explanation as to why a specific strategy is offered to a particular patient consulting the system, and not to others.[70]

Group Decision Making:

Shahar has also spent a significant effort on trying to elucidate the basic mechanisms underlying the advantages and disadvantages of Group Decision Making, versus the collective wisdom of individuals trying to solve a problem on their won (often referred to as “Wisdom of the Masses”). Shahar had hypothesized that the capability of a group, presented with a strategic problem (which typically requires the capability to project the solution multiple steps into the future), to converge [through a majority voting] towards a correct solution, depends, among other factors, on how easy it is to demonstrate the correctness of the solution to a group member who did not manage to solve the problem. However, he conjectured also that the ease of demonstrability of that correct solution is related directly to the difficulty of verifying that solution, which depends on the theoretical computational characteristics of the problem at hand, and not necessarily on the personal characteristics of the people trying to solve it. Together with his colleagues, Dr. Ya’akov Gal of BGU, and then Graduate students Ofra Amir and Yuval Hart [Harvard], and Dor Amir [BGU], and using the [Amazon Mechanical Turk] as a platform for their experiments, the team had successfully demonstrated a key part of Shahar’s basic hypothesis, by showing that non-solvers of problems that are difficult but computationally easier to verify can easily accept a correct solution and reject a wrong one, while non-solvers of problems that are just as difficult to solve, but also difficult to verify, are much less likely to do so[72].The team has also demonstrated, both empirically and theoretically that, in difficult but highly demonstrable problems, adding group members increases the probability of converging to a correct solution, while actually reducing the probability of convergence in the case of difficult problems with a low demonstrability of the correctness of a solution [Amir, O., Amir, D., Shahar, Y., Hart, Y., and Gal, Y. (2018). The more the merrier? Increasing group size may be detrimental to group decision-making performance. PLOS One. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192213]. Zahira Cohen (talk) 07:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Reply quotebox with inserted reviewer decisions and feedback 18-MAR-2018
Below you will see where text from your request has been quoted and individual advisory messages – either accepting, declining or otherwise commenting upon your proposals – have been inserted underneath each major proposal. Please see the Notes section at the bottom of the quotebox for additional information about each request. Additionally, text within the article which was found to work against several different guidelines has been removed from the article.      Spintendo       08:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)