This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | â | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
@ TompaDompa: 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)
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.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose ( talk ¡ contribs) 23:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
¡ ¡ ¡ |
I'll start by digesting the earlier review, at Talk:DunningâKruger effect/GA1. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 23:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Copyvio check
Images
Definition
In the case of the DunningâKruger effect, this applies mainly to people with low skill in a specific area trying to evaluate their competence within this area. The systematic error concerns their tendency to greatly overestimate their competence, i.e. to see themselves as more skilled than they are.- OK
According to psychologist Robert D. McIntosh et al.,- feels slightly awkward in the text, but perhaps less awkward than listing all the authors.
Measurement, analysis, and investigated tasks
The DunningâKruger effect is present in both cases, but tends to be significantly more pronounced when done in relative terms. This means that people are usually more accurate when predicting their raw score than when assessing how well they did relative to their peer group.- no issues.
The strongest effect is seen for the participants in the bottom quartile, who tend to see themselves as being part of the top two quartiles when measured in relative terms- no issues
objective performances are often divided into four groups. They start from the bottom quartile of low performers and proceed to the top quartile of high performers- no issues
In some cases, these studies gather and compare data from many countriesIs this supported by the text? It has the example of a survey across 34 countries of the math skills of 15-year-olds but I didn;t immediately see another one that was across many countries.
Most of the studies are conducted in laboratories,from the cited sources?
We have observed this pattern of dramatic overestimation by bottom performers across a wide range of tasks in the labâfrom tests of logical reasoning and grammar skills (Kruger & Dunning, 1999) to more social abilities like emotional intelligence (Sheldon, Ames, & Dunning, 2010) and discerning which jokes are funny (Kruger & Dunning, 1999). We and others have also observed similar overestimation in real world settings as people tackle everyday tasks, such as hunters taking a quiz on firearm use and safety, based on one created by the National Rifle Association, at a Trap and Skeet competition (Ehrlinger, Johnson, Banner, Dunning, & Kruger, 2008), and laboratory technicians taking an exam about medical lab procedures and knowledge (Haun, Zerinque, Leach, & Foley, 2000). In all cases, top to bottom performers provide self-evaluations along percentile scales that largely replicate (Fig. 5.2).. The term "most" is implied but not explicitly spelled out. I reformulated it to be on the safe side. Phlsph7 ( talk) 12:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
If done afterward, the participants receive no independent clues during the performance as to how well they did- I haven't read this source; is this stated as absolutely in the source? I'd imagine, for example, that if it was face to face, there could be some unconscious clues.
...no feedback is delivered during the quiz itself..... You are probably right that an interviewer may inadvertently give away clues. But if that had a significant impact then it would spoil the measurement. If the formulation is a problem, we could change it to "should receive no independent clues". Phlsph7 ( talk) 12:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Explanations
The metacognitive lack may hinder some people from becoming better by hiding their flaws from them.- no issues.
Practical significance
Ehrlinger et al. 2008, pp. 98â121.- is it possible to be more specific about the relevant part of the source?
In 2000, Kruger and Dunning were awarded the satirical Ig Nobel Prize- no issues.
Lead
Sources
General comments
@
Constant314 and
Fabrickator: 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".
[1]
. I don't think it is required to understand the text. But I see it as a nice and interesting addition.
[a] 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)
... 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)
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)
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)
Notes
References
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | â | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
@ TompaDompa: 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)
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.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose ( talk ¡ contribs) 23:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
¡ ¡ ¡ |
I'll start by digesting the earlier review, at Talk:DunningâKruger effect/GA1. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose ( talk) 23:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Copyvio check
Images
Definition
In the case of the DunningâKruger effect, this applies mainly to people with low skill in a specific area trying to evaluate their competence within this area. The systematic error concerns their tendency to greatly overestimate their competence, i.e. to see themselves as more skilled than they are.- OK
According to psychologist Robert D. McIntosh et al.,- feels slightly awkward in the text, but perhaps less awkward than listing all the authors.
Measurement, analysis, and investigated tasks
The DunningâKruger effect is present in both cases, but tends to be significantly more pronounced when done in relative terms. This means that people are usually more accurate when predicting their raw score than when assessing how well they did relative to their peer group.- no issues.
The strongest effect is seen for the participants in the bottom quartile, who tend to see themselves as being part of the top two quartiles when measured in relative terms- no issues
objective performances are often divided into four groups. They start from the bottom quartile of low performers and proceed to the top quartile of high performers- no issues
In some cases, these studies gather and compare data from many countriesIs this supported by the text? It has the example of a survey across 34 countries of the math skills of 15-year-olds but I didn;t immediately see another one that was across many countries.
Most of the studies are conducted in laboratories,from the cited sources?
We have observed this pattern of dramatic overestimation by bottom performers across a wide range of tasks in the labâfrom tests of logical reasoning and grammar skills (Kruger & Dunning, 1999) to more social abilities like emotional intelligence (Sheldon, Ames, & Dunning, 2010) and discerning which jokes are funny (Kruger & Dunning, 1999). We and others have also observed similar overestimation in real world settings as people tackle everyday tasks, such as hunters taking a quiz on firearm use and safety, based on one created by the National Rifle Association, at a Trap and Skeet competition (Ehrlinger, Johnson, Banner, Dunning, & Kruger, 2008), and laboratory technicians taking an exam about medical lab procedures and knowledge (Haun, Zerinque, Leach, & Foley, 2000). In all cases, top to bottom performers provide self-evaluations along percentile scales that largely replicate (Fig. 5.2).. The term "most" is implied but not explicitly spelled out. I reformulated it to be on the safe side. Phlsph7 ( talk) 12:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
If done afterward, the participants receive no independent clues during the performance as to how well they did- I haven't read this source; is this stated as absolutely in the source? I'd imagine, for example, that if it was face to face, there could be some unconscious clues.
...no feedback is delivered during the quiz itself..... You are probably right that an interviewer may inadvertently give away clues. But if that had a significant impact then it would spoil the measurement. If the formulation is a problem, we could change it to "should receive no independent clues". Phlsph7 ( talk) 12:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Explanations
The metacognitive lack may hinder some people from becoming better by hiding their flaws from them.- no issues.
Practical significance
Ehrlinger et al. 2008, pp. 98â121.- is it possible to be more specific about the relevant part of the source?
In 2000, Kruger and Dunning were awarded the satirical Ig Nobel Prize- no issues.
Lead
Sources
General comments
@
Constant314 and
Fabrickator: 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".
[1]
. I don't think it is required to understand the text. But I see it as a nice and interesting addition.
[a] 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)
... 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)
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)
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)
Notes
References