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 |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ¡
Article talk (
|
history) ¡
Watch
Reviewer: TompaDompa ( talk ¡ contribs) 02:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
I will review this. TompaDompa ( talk) 02:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Nevertheless, low performers' self-assessment is lower than that of high performers.I notice that the "Mount Stupid" graph (and its interpretation) has been discussed a number of times on the talk page.
Since its first publication, various criticisms of the effect and its explanation have been made.â going by what the body says, it seems that saying that the effect (rather than the metacognitive explanation) has been subject to various criticisms is not entirely accurate.
Some theorists hold that the way low and high performers are distributed makes assessing their skill level more difficult for low performers, thereby explaining their erroneous self-assessments independent of their metacognitive abilities.â this is basically incomprehensible when presented without context like this.
Biases are systematic in the sense that they occur consistently in different situations. They are tendencies since they concern certain inclinations or dispositions that may be observed in groups of people, but are not manifested in every performance.â is this to explain the phrase "systematic tendency"?
to greatly overestimate their competence or to see themselves as more skilled than they areâ are those not just different ways of saying the same thing?
the lack of skill and the ignorance of this lackâ to me, this is an odd phrasing. Specifically, the use of the word "lack" without a complementary "of X" sticks out to me.
see the relation to metacognition as a possible explanation independent of one's definitionâ "independent of one's definition"?
So it is sometimes claimed to include the reverse effect for people with high skill.â "claimed"?
On this view,â grammar.
Arguably,â WP:Editorializing.
This phenomenon has been categorized as a form of the false-consensus effect.â gloss.
If done afterward, it is important that the participants receive no independent clues during the performance as to how well they did.â this almost comes off as a how-to guide.
When done in absolute terms, self-assessment and performance are measured according to absolute standardsâ seems tautological.
Some researchers focus their analysis on the difference between the two abilities, i.e. on subjective ability minus objective ability, to highlight the negative correlation.â I don't follow. Either this is fairly redundant (how else would you measure an overestimation?) or there's something I'm missing.
While many studies are conducted in laboratories, others take place in real-world settings.â the difference is not immediately obvious to me, nor is its significance.
More recent studiesâ MOS:RECENT.
and points outâ MOS:SAID.
It does not yet contain the term "DunningâKruger effect", which was introduced later.â the cited WP:PRIMARY source can of course only verify the first part, and it's dubious if a primary source should be used in this way in the first place.
It does not yet contain the term "DunningâKruger effect", which was introduced later.â when?
the incompetent bank robberies of McArthur Wheeler and Clifton Earl Johnsonâ is there a strong reason to name these presumably-living people and call them "incompetent" in WP:WikiVoice?
tries to showâ "tries to show"?
concludes that the DunningâKruger effect obtains only in tasks that feel easyâ "obtains"?
As he writes, [...]â this phrasing endorses Dunning's view rather than just reporting it.
A 2022 study found, consistent with the DunningâKruger effect, that people who reject the scientific consensus on issues think they know the most about them but actually know the least.â this is a stronger assertion about the connection to the DunningâKruger effect than the cited source supports. It also seems to contradict the earlier
Nevertheless, low performers' self-assessment is lower than that of high performers.
Some attempts have been made to measure metacognitive abilities directly to confirm this hypothesis.â to investigate it, one would hope.
There is a large and growing body of criticism of the assumptions on which the metacognitive account is based.â what the cited source says is
The classic metacognitive interpretation of the DunningâKruger effect has been challenged by alternative explanations.
This line of argument usually proceeds by providing an alternative approach that promises a better explanation of the observed tendencies.â that seems like it would go without saying.
One such account is based on the idea that both low and high performers have in general the same metacognitive ability to assess their skill level.â that just seems like the negation of the metacognitive interpretation.
But such adjustments do not eliminate the DunningâKruger effect, which is why the view that regression toward the mean is sufficient to explain it is usually rejected.â not in the cited source.
However, it has been suggestedâ MOS:WEASEL.
Defenders of the statistical explanationâ proponents.
By choosing the right variables for the randomness due to luck and a positive offset to account for the better-than-average effect, it is possible to simulate experimentsâ needlessly technical phrasing.
almost the same correlation between self-assessed ability.â and what? This is an incomplete statement.
This means that the DunningâKruger effect may still have a role to play, if only a minor one.â the meaning of this is not immediately obvious.
Opponents of this approachâ "opponents"?
But even proponents of this explanation agree that this does not explain the empirical findings in full.â not in the cited source.
Another statistical-artifact-based challenge to the Dunning-Kruger effect is the demonstration that a form of the effect can emerge when the errors of the self-assessment are randomly created.â rather opaque.
The DunningâKruger effect can also have negative implications for the agent in various economic activitiesâ needlessly technical phrasing. Why "agent"?
Some also concentrate on its positive side, e.g., ignorance can sometimes be bliss.â if there is only one positive side, "e.g." is incorrect. If there are multiple positive sides, "side" is incorrect. "e.g., ignorance can sometimes be bliss" is an odd phrasing to me.
a satiric Ig Nobel Prizeâ the Ig Nobel Prize is always satirical. Either swap the indefinite article for a definite one, or provide the explanation that it is satirical elsewhere.
GA review â see WP:WIAGA for criteria
@ Phlsph7: I am closing this as unsuccessful. I'm sorry this has taken so long; I started out with the intention to provide detailed feedback, but I have settled for providing a non-exhaustive sample of issues I noted while reading through the article instead. This is an interesting topic and it's a shame close the nomination like this, but there are systemic issues with the article that are not trivially fixable. The writing style is rather WP:TECHNICAL and unnecessarily wordy in places. More seriously, the article misuses sources (violating WP:NOR) and engages in disputes rather than merely describing them (violating WP:NPOV). My suggestion to bring this in line with Wikipedia's WP:Core content policies would be to pick a handful of review articles (or other similar sources that treat the entire overarching topic broadly), and use those to write the article. Sources on specific aspects (especially studies dealing with the effect) can be used to flesh out certain parts of the article by providing additional details, but should not serve as the basis for the article. WP:Cite reviews, don't write them. TompaDompa ( talk) 22:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
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 |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ¡
Article talk (
|
history) ¡
Watch
Reviewer: TompaDompa ( talk ¡ contribs) 02:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
I will review this. TompaDompa ( talk) 02:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Nevertheless, low performers' self-assessment is lower than that of high performers.I notice that the "Mount Stupid" graph (and its interpretation) has been discussed a number of times on the talk page.
Since its first publication, various criticisms of the effect and its explanation have been made.â going by what the body says, it seems that saying that the effect (rather than the metacognitive explanation) has been subject to various criticisms is not entirely accurate.
Some theorists hold that the way low and high performers are distributed makes assessing their skill level more difficult for low performers, thereby explaining their erroneous self-assessments independent of their metacognitive abilities.â this is basically incomprehensible when presented without context like this.
Biases are systematic in the sense that they occur consistently in different situations. They are tendencies since they concern certain inclinations or dispositions that may be observed in groups of people, but are not manifested in every performance.â is this to explain the phrase "systematic tendency"?
to greatly overestimate their competence or to see themselves as more skilled than they areâ are those not just different ways of saying the same thing?
the lack of skill and the ignorance of this lackâ to me, this is an odd phrasing. Specifically, the use of the word "lack" without a complementary "of X" sticks out to me.
see the relation to metacognition as a possible explanation independent of one's definitionâ "independent of one's definition"?
So it is sometimes claimed to include the reverse effect for people with high skill.â "claimed"?
On this view,â grammar.
Arguably,â WP:Editorializing.
This phenomenon has been categorized as a form of the false-consensus effect.â gloss.
If done afterward, it is important that the participants receive no independent clues during the performance as to how well they did.â this almost comes off as a how-to guide.
When done in absolute terms, self-assessment and performance are measured according to absolute standardsâ seems tautological.
Some researchers focus their analysis on the difference between the two abilities, i.e. on subjective ability minus objective ability, to highlight the negative correlation.â I don't follow. Either this is fairly redundant (how else would you measure an overestimation?) or there's something I'm missing.
While many studies are conducted in laboratories, others take place in real-world settings.â the difference is not immediately obvious to me, nor is its significance.
More recent studiesâ MOS:RECENT.
and points outâ MOS:SAID.
It does not yet contain the term "DunningâKruger effect", which was introduced later.â the cited WP:PRIMARY source can of course only verify the first part, and it's dubious if a primary source should be used in this way in the first place.
It does not yet contain the term "DunningâKruger effect", which was introduced later.â when?
the incompetent bank robberies of McArthur Wheeler and Clifton Earl Johnsonâ is there a strong reason to name these presumably-living people and call them "incompetent" in WP:WikiVoice?
tries to showâ "tries to show"?
concludes that the DunningâKruger effect obtains only in tasks that feel easyâ "obtains"?
As he writes, [...]â this phrasing endorses Dunning's view rather than just reporting it.
A 2022 study found, consistent with the DunningâKruger effect, that people who reject the scientific consensus on issues think they know the most about them but actually know the least.â this is a stronger assertion about the connection to the DunningâKruger effect than the cited source supports. It also seems to contradict the earlier
Nevertheless, low performers' self-assessment is lower than that of high performers.
Some attempts have been made to measure metacognitive abilities directly to confirm this hypothesis.â to investigate it, one would hope.
There is a large and growing body of criticism of the assumptions on which the metacognitive account is based.â what the cited source says is
The classic metacognitive interpretation of the DunningâKruger effect has been challenged by alternative explanations.
This line of argument usually proceeds by providing an alternative approach that promises a better explanation of the observed tendencies.â that seems like it would go without saying.
One such account is based on the idea that both low and high performers have in general the same metacognitive ability to assess their skill level.â that just seems like the negation of the metacognitive interpretation.
But such adjustments do not eliminate the DunningâKruger effect, which is why the view that regression toward the mean is sufficient to explain it is usually rejected.â not in the cited source.
However, it has been suggestedâ MOS:WEASEL.
Defenders of the statistical explanationâ proponents.
By choosing the right variables for the randomness due to luck and a positive offset to account for the better-than-average effect, it is possible to simulate experimentsâ needlessly technical phrasing.
almost the same correlation between self-assessed ability.â and what? This is an incomplete statement.
This means that the DunningâKruger effect may still have a role to play, if only a minor one.â the meaning of this is not immediately obvious.
Opponents of this approachâ "opponents"?
But even proponents of this explanation agree that this does not explain the empirical findings in full.â not in the cited source.
Another statistical-artifact-based challenge to the Dunning-Kruger effect is the demonstration that a form of the effect can emerge when the errors of the self-assessment are randomly created.â rather opaque.
The DunningâKruger effect can also have negative implications for the agent in various economic activitiesâ needlessly technical phrasing. Why "agent"?
Some also concentrate on its positive side, e.g., ignorance can sometimes be bliss.â if there is only one positive side, "e.g." is incorrect. If there are multiple positive sides, "side" is incorrect. "e.g., ignorance can sometimes be bliss" is an odd phrasing to me.
a satiric Ig Nobel Prizeâ the Ig Nobel Prize is always satirical. Either swap the indefinite article for a definite one, or provide the explanation that it is satirical elsewhere.
GA review â see WP:WIAGA for criteria
@ Phlsph7: I am closing this as unsuccessful. I'm sorry this has taken so long; I started out with the intention to provide detailed feedback, but I have settled for providing a non-exhaustive sample of issues I noted while reading through the article instead. This is an interesting topic and it's a shame close the nomination like this, but there are systemic issues with the article that are not trivially fixable. The writing style is rather WP:TECHNICAL and unnecessarily wordy in places. More seriously, the article misuses sources (violating WP:NOR) and engages in disputes rather than merely describing them (violating WP:NPOV). My suggestion to bring this in line with Wikipedia's WP:Core content policies would be to pick a handful of review articles (or other similar sources that treat the entire overarching topic broadly), and use those to write the article. Sources on specific aspects (especially studies dealing with the effect) can be used to flesh out certain parts of the article by providing additional details, but should not serve as the basis for the article. WP:Cite reviews, don't write them. TompaDompa ( talk) 22:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)