This page 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. |
Dear Rick Block,
My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.
So a few things about the interviews:
Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name
HERE instead.
If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.
Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Obar -- Jaobar ( talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Young June Sah -- Yjune.sah ( talk) 03:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Union of Ibero-American Capital Cities, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Columbia ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Template:PrefectureTOC has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 18:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
If I deleted a talk article on the Denver page it was an accident, sorry
If I deleted an article on the Denver talk page it was an accident, sorry
-Hogs555 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogs555 ( talk • contribs) 06:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
See my post on the "Climate Fairness" Section of the Denver talk page. I am trying as best I can to keep the article to the point, factual, sourced, and not editorialized. I could really use some help from others in this respect. The edits that keep coming through are full of commentary and unsourced conjecture.
Strongbad1982 ( talk) 06:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Obviously wikipedia is too political and opinionative to waste anymore of my time on. Whatever, have a great day. -- Hogs555 ( talk) 07:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Rick Block. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Log&page=User%3A76.190.228.162&type=block -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi Rick Block. Here goes something wrong, I think (after user Negrojimenes). Perhaps you might want to have a look at it? Thanks! Regards, Trijnstel talk 19:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi - I run a bot that periodically updates Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls based on the members of Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls. It apparently hasn't been working for a while. It's not exactly related to the bot's issue, but looking into this I noticed these two edits [1] [2], which basically removed everyone using either of the two userboxes from the category. Can you tell me why this was done? Thanks. -- Rick Block ( talk) 17:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi Rick. I have finally replied (in part, at length) to your inquiry on my talk page. ~ Ningauble ( talk) 22:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Category:1906 Summer Olympics, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Courcelles 16:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Rick, I don't understand, and cannot find arguments on the talk page, why you moved the solution with Bayes away from the start of the article. Nijdam ( talk) 17:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I had about 17 FAs when I was Rlevse. I now edit as PumpkinSky. I was wondering if the FAs could be combined all as PumpkinSky for WBFAN purposes. Thank you. PumpkinSky talk 00:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
hello,
can your bot do the same with GAs, as suggested here? Regards.-- GoP T C N 11:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
dutiful bots and personal advice | |
Thank you for keeping "the place running" by your bots who serve daily. and for helping editors, for example the author and photographer of the gem to connect to his past achievements, - in other words: you are an awesome Wikipedian, - to quote you: "see what kind of mood you're in"? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC) |
A year ago, you were the 162nd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, hope that finds you in a good mood, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 05:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Rick, I send you an email, using the last address you used to reach me, but it was returned. Did you change your address? Mine is still the same. Nijdam ( talk) 15:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
(Posted to Martin and Rick's talk page) Please check the RfC below for errors and suggest changes as needed. I did some minor copyediting for clarity, so let me know if you think the old version was better. In particular, look at my solution to the question of the yellow highlighted sections, and double check to see that I started with the correct version. If you wish, I can preload your comments before posting the RfC. -Guy M.
Proposed RFC statement
|
---|
{{rfc|sci}} <<-- (this gets uncommented when we go live. -Guy M.) The aim of this RfC is to resolve a longstanding and ongoing conflict involving multiple editors concerning the relative importance and prominence within the Monty Hall Problem article of the 'simple' and the more complex 'conditional' solutions to the problem. The 'simple' solutions do not consider which specific door the host opens to reveal a goat (see examples here and here). The 'conditional' solutions use conditional probability to solve the problem in the case that the host has opened a specific door to reveal a goat (see example here). One group of editors considers that the 'simple' solutions are perfectly correct and easier to understand and that the more complex, 'conditional' solutions are an unimportant academic extension to the problem. The other group believes that the 'simple' solutions are essentially incomplete or do not answer the question as posed and that the 'conditional' solutions are necessary to solve the problem. Both sides claim sources support their views. That argument is unlikely to ever be resolved but two proposals have been made to resolve the dispute. Both proposals aim to give equal prominence and weight to the two types of solution. One of the points of contention is whether either of the proposals below violates any Wikipedia policies and guidelines (in particular WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:WEIGHT, WP:EP, MOS:JARGON, WP:MOSINTRO, WP:MTAA and WP:OPINION). See the individual editor's comments below for arguments on both sides of this issue. Proposal 1 is for the initial sections including 'Solution' and 'Aids to understanding' to be based exclusively on 'simple' solutions (with no disclaimers that they do not solve the right problem or are incomplete) then to follow that, for those interested, with a section at the same heading level giving a full and scholarly exposition of the 'conditional' solutions. Proposal 2 The other proposal is for the article to include in the initial 'Solution' section both one or more 'simple' solutions and an approachable 'conditional' solution (showing the conditional probability the car is behind Door 2 given the player picks Door 1 and the host opens Door 3 is 2/3) with neither presented as "more correct" than the other, and to include in some later section of the article a discussion of the criticism of the 'simple' solutions. Considering all Wikipedia policies and guidelines, do should tye Montey hallProblem page be edited according to Proposal 1, Proposal 2, or neither? Note: Because prior attempts to resolve this conflict have resulted in long discussions with many endless back and forth comments, please place any responses to other editor's comments in your own "Comments from user X" section and limit your comments to no more than 500 words. If you wish to have a threaded discussion, feel free to start a new section on this talk page but outside of this RfC. Comments from User 1User 1's comments go here. Comments from User 2User 2's comments go here. Comments from User 3User 1's comments go here. Comments from User 4User 2's comments go here. Comments from User XPlease create a new section or two if you use up the last one. |
Rick's comments
|
---|
This is a POV dispute, plain and simple. POV 1) "Simple" solutions are the "right" way to solve the problem. POV 2) The "right" solution is to compute the conditional probabilities the car is behind Door 1 and Door 2, given the player has selected Door 1 and the host has opened Door 3. Proposal 1's "compromise" is to give "simple" solutions far greater WP:WEIGHT, and structurally endorse POV 1. Proposal 2 gives equal WEIGHT and endorses neither POV, remaining strictly NPOV. Regarding WEIGHT: many, many sources present "simple" solutions. But the vast majority of these are popular, not academic, sources and many of them uncritically parrot vos Savant's ("simple") solution. Within the field of probability, the textbook solution (literally and figuratively, meaning both appears in numerous textbooks and is completely standard) is to compute the conditional probabilities. This solution, presented by the preponderance of sources in the most relevant academic field, should have at least equal WEIGHT to any other. Regarding STRUCTURE: there is a controversial, but by no means fringe, POV expressed by numerous sources, e.g. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8], criticizing "simple" solutions. To be NPOV the article must not endorse this POV (as it arguably did at one point, which is perhaps the actual source of much of the conflict). But it equally must not endorse the opposite view that "simple" solutions are universally accepted as "perfectly correct". Proposal 1 does exactly this, presenting "simple" solutions as "the solution" ("with no disclaimers that they do not solve the right problem or are incomplete") and relegating "conditional" solutions to a later section "for those interested". This creates a strong structural POV suggesting the "simple" solutions are true and undisputed, which (hardly coincidentally) exactly matches the POV of certain editors involved in this conflict. Furthermore, the claim "simple" solutions are easier to understand is at best dubious. Krauss and Wang say 97% of their test subjects drew an image of the (conditional!) situation where the player picked Door 1 and the host opened Door 3 (like the image to the right), and that once formed this image "prevents the problem solver from gaining access to the intuitive [simple] solution". We know vos Savant's solution was not convincing (she received thousands of letters after publishing it). As Eisenhauer says "what could and should have been a correct and enlightening answer to the problem was made unconvincing and misleading."The resolution here is simple. Follow Wikipedia's core content policy of NPOV. Include BOTH "simple" and approachable "conditional" solutions in an initial "Solution" section, presenting both as equally valid. Discuss the differences between these types of solutions in a later section "for those interested". I.e. Proposal 2. |
Because of your previous participation at Monty Hall problem, I am inviting you to comment on the following RfC:
Talk:Monty Hall problem#Conditional or Simple solutions for the Monty Hall problem?
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 22:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Rick. I realize that my remarks at Talk:Monty Hall problem#Comments from Ningauble might seem a bit harsh. Spending several years at Wikiquote has made me a little hypersensitive about the problem of taking things out of context or over-interpreting what sources say. I know that this can happen unintentionally, and I have to consciously strive to avoid doing it myself. I encourage you to do the same.
This is not to say the observations in these sources are completely useless (except Grinstead & Snell). For example, I think we both agree that Morgan et al. (1991) is an important source, but we have different perspectives on what is significant about it. Notwithstanding their strident criticism of vos Savant's solution to the question as she stated it, in my opinion its real significance for the history of MHP lies in influencing the evolution of the statement of the question away from what they call the "vos Savant scenario" toward the now widespread so-called "standard" problem. It might be OR to ascribe that influence explicitly, but the paper is so widely cited that we can certainly use it as a prominent example that clearly shows the "vos Savant scenario" can be interpreted in a (frequentist) manner that does not permit a closed-form solution for the probability of winning. ~ Ningauble ( talk) 16:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
In weighting the POV that the sources express, we must accurately represent that view, with diligent attention to the point they are addressing. I hope that when you get a chance you will review the sources again in light of my observations in the RfC.
In light of those observations, I think the "Criticism of the simple solutions" section of the article should be completely rewritten and recast as (a) explaining the importance of the difference between the "vos Savant scenario" and the "standard version", and (b) pointing out the versatility of conditional probability analysis. I wanted to rewrite the section myself some time ago, but the contentious environment around this article dissuaded me from even bringing it up. Unfortunately, it does not look like the RfC is going bring peace. ~ Ningauble ( talk) 02:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Would you consider having Rick Bot change the definition of active on WP:LA from thirty or more edits in two months to thirty or more edits in a month? I have a feeling with the little amount of activity amongst administrators now that fifteen edits a month is considered active anymore. Actually, changing it to fifty edits in a month would reflect better accuracy, but I think thirty in one month is probably going to make enough of a difference for now. Regards, — Moe ε 23:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I've reverted the bot's last edit. It seems confused about the status of many FAs, having de-listed many that are still @FA status. Gough Whitlam, Vampire, and Evolution, for example. No doubt there were correct bits in there, but something has sent it amok. Br'er Rabbit ( talk) 10:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm going through and removing the indefblocked users since the page is broken; is the bot going to revert me, or should it be okay? -- Rs chen 7754 01:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Rick,
You removed an edit I made a few weeks ago. I posted a link to an interactive simulator that I created over a decade ago which is useful for those struggling with the problem. I have looked at the other simulators and I don't see why anyone would see the NYT version as equal, let alone providing an experience superior to the one I my simulator offers. What mine does is allow people to quickly go through a bunch of Monty Hall problem like games in real time while stats are kept for them. 100 games. They can switch or stay or change for every round. No waiting for the next game to load, since all 100 are loaded and visible at the onset.
I am currently in a Model Thinking class on coursera.org where more than a few people did not get the logic that is obvious to you and me. Graphs mean nothing. If you have known this problem a long time then you know what I mean. They have to smash their heads against something that doesn't allow them to hold onto their erroneous constructs. And it has to be accessible enough to keep them engaged.
According to my calculations, if you run through the problem for 100 games, there is a 95% chance you will wind up with more than 57 wins if you switch every time. And a 99.7% chance that you will get 53 or more out of 100. But with 10 games, there is a about 32% chance that you will get 5 or less wins by switching every time. That is based on my recent learning of standard deviations, so you can correct me if I am incorrect here. If it is correct, that means that if someone goes the NYT version for 10 tries (I found it to be very slow), they may well find it is 50/50, based on their limited experience and be burned out from the transaction time. Simply put, the feedback from my simulation is much faster with no waiting.
Anyway, if you are going to remove a simulator link, I certainly don't think it should be the one I posted.
Reid Reidme ( talk) 03:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
The bot seems to have missed several articles. I added Hiram Wesley Evans myself, but others (like Peter Warlock and Percy Chapman) were not added either. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 01:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
An explanation of your comments is welcome on the article's talk page. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 01:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Apparently that page has been protected from editing because the bot is malfunctioning. Would you please look and see what the issue is? Anonymouse321 ( talk • contribs) 07:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello,
could your bot merge my old name, GreatOrangePumpkin, with the current one, Tomcat7, in list such as Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations? Regards.-- Tomcat ( 7) 20:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
This edit removed legitimate admins including one ArbCom member.
—
Berean Hunter
(talk) 14:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Soooo, it's that time of year again. Any chance you might be interested in running for Arbcom? : ) - jc37 22:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello, a couple of questions / comments for you if I may. (1) Does your bot still add main page appearance dates to WP:FA2012, [[WP:FA2011] etc? I can spot several on the 2012 page alone that have appeared recently but have not been marked as such: HMS New Zealand (1911), Charles Villiers Stanford and United States v. Wong Kim Ark to name but three. (2) The main page appearance dates are in wikilinked format, which hasn't been the way that things are done for some time; I don't know if this is still how the bot adds dates, but if so, would it be possible to change this? And if the dates are manually reset to non-wikilinked format, will the bot accept or revert this? (3) Your bot is fighting with GimmeBot about the new name of this featured artice; GimmeBot correctly updated the link to avoid pointing at a dab page, but your bot didn't like it... Thanks, Bencherlite Talk 16:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
This page 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. |
Dear Rick Block,
My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.
So a few things about the interviews:
Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name
HERE instead.
If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.
Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Obar -- Jaobar ( talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Young June Sah -- Yjune.sah ( talk) 03:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Union of Ibero-American Capital Cities, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Columbia ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Template:PrefectureTOC has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 18:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
If I deleted a talk article on the Denver page it was an accident, sorry
If I deleted an article on the Denver talk page it was an accident, sorry
-Hogs555 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogs555 ( talk • contribs) 06:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
See my post on the "Climate Fairness" Section of the Denver talk page. I am trying as best I can to keep the article to the point, factual, sourced, and not editorialized. I could really use some help from others in this respect. The edits that keep coming through are full of commentary and unsourced conjecture.
Strongbad1982 ( talk) 06:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Obviously wikipedia is too political and opinionative to waste anymore of my time on. Whatever, have a great day. -- Hogs555 ( talk) 07:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Rick Block. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Log&page=User%3A76.190.228.162&type=block -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi Rick Block. Here goes something wrong, I think (after user Negrojimenes). Perhaps you might want to have a look at it? Thanks! Regards, Trijnstel talk 19:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi - I run a bot that periodically updates Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls based on the members of Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls. It apparently hasn't been working for a while. It's not exactly related to the bot's issue, but looking into this I noticed these two edits [1] [2], which basically removed everyone using either of the two userboxes from the category. Can you tell me why this was done? Thanks. -- Rick Block ( talk) 17:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi Rick. I have finally replied (in part, at length) to your inquiry on my talk page. ~ Ningauble ( talk) 22:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Category:1906 Summer Olympics, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Courcelles 16:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Rick, I don't understand, and cannot find arguments on the talk page, why you moved the solution with Bayes away from the start of the article. Nijdam ( talk) 17:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I had about 17 FAs when I was Rlevse. I now edit as PumpkinSky. I was wondering if the FAs could be combined all as PumpkinSky for WBFAN purposes. Thank you. PumpkinSky talk 00:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
hello,
can your bot do the same with GAs, as suggested here? Regards.-- GoP T C N 11:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
dutiful bots and personal advice | |
Thank you for keeping "the place running" by your bots who serve daily. and for helping editors, for example the author and photographer of the gem to connect to his past achievements, - in other words: you are an awesome Wikipedian, - to quote you: "see what kind of mood you're in"? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC) |
A year ago, you were the 162nd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, hope that finds you in a good mood, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 05:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi Rick, I send you an email, using the last address you used to reach me, but it was returned. Did you change your address? Mine is still the same. Nijdam ( talk) 15:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
(Posted to Martin and Rick's talk page) Please check the RfC below for errors and suggest changes as needed. I did some minor copyediting for clarity, so let me know if you think the old version was better. In particular, look at my solution to the question of the yellow highlighted sections, and double check to see that I started with the correct version. If you wish, I can preload your comments before posting the RfC. -Guy M.
Proposed RFC statement
|
---|
{{rfc|sci}} <<-- (this gets uncommented when we go live. -Guy M.) The aim of this RfC is to resolve a longstanding and ongoing conflict involving multiple editors concerning the relative importance and prominence within the Monty Hall Problem article of the 'simple' and the more complex 'conditional' solutions to the problem. The 'simple' solutions do not consider which specific door the host opens to reveal a goat (see examples here and here). The 'conditional' solutions use conditional probability to solve the problem in the case that the host has opened a specific door to reveal a goat (see example here). One group of editors considers that the 'simple' solutions are perfectly correct and easier to understand and that the more complex, 'conditional' solutions are an unimportant academic extension to the problem. The other group believes that the 'simple' solutions are essentially incomplete or do not answer the question as posed and that the 'conditional' solutions are necessary to solve the problem. Both sides claim sources support their views. That argument is unlikely to ever be resolved but two proposals have been made to resolve the dispute. Both proposals aim to give equal prominence and weight to the two types of solution. One of the points of contention is whether either of the proposals below violates any Wikipedia policies and guidelines (in particular WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:WEIGHT, WP:EP, MOS:JARGON, WP:MOSINTRO, WP:MTAA and WP:OPINION). See the individual editor's comments below for arguments on both sides of this issue. Proposal 1 is for the initial sections including 'Solution' and 'Aids to understanding' to be based exclusively on 'simple' solutions (with no disclaimers that they do not solve the right problem or are incomplete) then to follow that, for those interested, with a section at the same heading level giving a full and scholarly exposition of the 'conditional' solutions. Proposal 2 The other proposal is for the article to include in the initial 'Solution' section both one or more 'simple' solutions and an approachable 'conditional' solution (showing the conditional probability the car is behind Door 2 given the player picks Door 1 and the host opens Door 3 is 2/3) with neither presented as "more correct" than the other, and to include in some later section of the article a discussion of the criticism of the 'simple' solutions. Considering all Wikipedia policies and guidelines, do should tye Montey hallProblem page be edited according to Proposal 1, Proposal 2, or neither? Note: Because prior attempts to resolve this conflict have resulted in long discussions with many endless back and forth comments, please place any responses to other editor's comments in your own "Comments from user X" section and limit your comments to no more than 500 words. If you wish to have a threaded discussion, feel free to start a new section on this talk page but outside of this RfC. Comments from User 1User 1's comments go here. Comments from User 2User 2's comments go here. Comments from User 3User 1's comments go here. Comments from User 4User 2's comments go here. Comments from User XPlease create a new section or two if you use up the last one. |
Rick's comments
|
---|
This is a POV dispute, plain and simple. POV 1) "Simple" solutions are the "right" way to solve the problem. POV 2) The "right" solution is to compute the conditional probabilities the car is behind Door 1 and Door 2, given the player has selected Door 1 and the host has opened Door 3. Proposal 1's "compromise" is to give "simple" solutions far greater WP:WEIGHT, and structurally endorse POV 1. Proposal 2 gives equal WEIGHT and endorses neither POV, remaining strictly NPOV. Regarding WEIGHT: many, many sources present "simple" solutions. But the vast majority of these are popular, not academic, sources and many of them uncritically parrot vos Savant's ("simple") solution. Within the field of probability, the textbook solution (literally and figuratively, meaning both appears in numerous textbooks and is completely standard) is to compute the conditional probabilities. This solution, presented by the preponderance of sources in the most relevant academic field, should have at least equal WEIGHT to any other. Regarding STRUCTURE: there is a controversial, but by no means fringe, POV expressed by numerous sources, e.g. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8], criticizing "simple" solutions. To be NPOV the article must not endorse this POV (as it arguably did at one point, which is perhaps the actual source of much of the conflict). But it equally must not endorse the opposite view that "simple" solutions are universally accepted as "perfectly correct". Proposal 1 does exactly this, presenting "simple" solutions as "the solution" ("with no disclaimers that they do not solve the right problem or are incomplete") and relegating "conditional" solutions to a later section "for those interested". This creates a strong structural POV suggesting the "simple" solutions are true and undisputed, which (hardly coincidentally) exactly matches the POV of certain editors involved in this conflict. Furthermore, the claim "simple" solutions are easier to understand is at best dubious. Krauss and Wang say 97% of their test subjects drew an image of the (conditional!) situation where the player picked Door 1 and the host opened Door 3 (like the image to the right), and that once formed this image "prevents the problem solver from gaining access to the intuitive [simple] solution". We know vos Savant's solution was not convincing (she received thousands of letters after publishing it). As Eisenhauer says "what could and should have been a correct and enlightening answer to the problem was made unconvincing and misleading."The resolution here is simple. Follow Wikipedia's core content policy of NPOV. Include BOTH "simple" and approachable "conditional" solutions in an initial "Solution" section, presenting both as equally valid. Discuss the differences between these types of solutions in a later section "for those interested". I.e. Proposal 2. |
Because of your previous participation at Monty Hall problem, I am inviting you to comment on the following RfC:
Talk:Monty Hall problem#Conditional or Simple solutions for the Monty Hall problem?
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 22:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Rick. I realize that my remarks at Talk:Monty Hall problem#Comments from Ningauble might seem a bit harsh. Spending several years at Wikiquote has made me a little hypersensitive about the problem of taking things out of context or over-interpreting what sources say. I know that this can happen unintentionally, and I have to consciously strive to avoid doing it myself. I encourage you to do the same.
This is not to say the observations in these sources are completely useless (except Grinstead & Snell). For example, I think we both agree that Morgan et al. (1991) is an important source, but we have different perspectives on what is significant about it. Notwithstanding their strident criticism of vos Savant's solution to the question as she stated it, in my opinion its real significance for the history of MHP lies in influencing the evolution of the statement of the question away from what they call the "vos Savant scenario" toward the now widespread so-called "standard" problem. It might be OR to ascribe that influence explicitly, but the paper is so widely cited that we can certainly use it as a prominent example that clearly shows the "vos Savant scenario" can be interpreted in a (frequentist) manner that does not permit a closed-form solution for the probability of winning. ~ Ningauble ( talk) 16:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
In weighting the POV that the sources express, we must accurately represent that view, with diligent attention to the point they are addressing. I hope that when you get a chance you will review the sources again in light of my observations in the RfC.
In light of those observations, I think the "Criticism of the simple solutions" section of the article should be completely rewritten and recast as (a) explaining the importance of the difference between the "vos Savant scenario" and the "standard version", and (b) pointing out the versatility of conditional probability analysis. I wanted to rewrite the section myself some time ago, but the contentious environment around this article dissuaded me from even bringing it up. Unfortunately, it does not look like the RfC is going bring peace. ~ Ningauble ( talk) 02:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Would you consider having Rick Bot change the definition of active on WP:LA from thirty or more edits in two months to thirty or more edits in a month? I have a feeling with the little amount of activity amongst administrators now that fifteen edits a month is considered active anymore. Actually, changing it to fifty edits in a month would reflect better accuracy, but I think thirty in one month is probably going to make enough of a difference for now. Regards, — Moe ε 23:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I've reverted the bot's last edit. It seems confused about the status of many FAs, having de-listed many that are still @FA status. Gough Whitlam, Vampire, and Evolution, for example. No doubt there were correct bits in there, but something has sent it amok. Br'er Rabbit ( talk) 10:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm going through and removing the indefblocked users since the page is broken; is the bot going to revert me, or should it be okay? -- Rs chen 7754 01:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Rick,
You removed an edit I made a few weeks ago. I posted a link to an interactive simulator that I created over a decade ago which is useful for those struggling with the problem. I have looked at the other simulators and I don't see why anyone would see the NYT version as equal, let alone providing an experience superior to the one I my simulator offers. What mine does is allow people to quickly go through a bunch of Monty Hall problem like games in real time while stats are kept for them. 100 games. They can switch or stay or change for every round. No waiting for the next game to load, since all 100 are loaded and visible at the onset.
I am currently in a Model Thinking class on coursera.org where more than a few people did not get the logic that is obvious to you and me. Graphs mean nothing. If you have known this problem a long time then you know what I mean. They have to smash their heads against something that doesn't allow them to hold onto their erroneous constructs. And it has to be accessible enough to keep them engaged.
According to my calculations, if you run through the problem for 100 games, there is a 95% chance you will wind up with more than 57 wins if you switch every time. And a 99.7% chance that you will get 53 or more out of 100. But with 10 games, there is a about 32% chance that you will get 5 or less wins by switching every time. That is based on my recent learning of standard deviations, so you can correct me if I am incorrect here. If it is correct, that means that if someone goes the NYT version for 10 tries (I found it to be very slow), they may well find it is 50/50, based on their limited experience and be burned out from the transaction time. Simply put, the feedback from my simulation is much faster with no waiting.
Anyway, if you are going to remove a simulator link, I certainly don't think it should be the one I posted.
Reid Reidme ( talk) 03:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
The bot seems to have missed several articles. I added Hiram Wesley Evans myself, but others (like Peter Warlock and Percy Chapman) were not added either. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 01:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
An explanation of your comments is welcome on the article's talk page. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 01:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Apparently that page has been protected from editing because the bot is malfunctioning. Would you please look and see what the issue is? Anonymouse321 ( talk • contribs) 07:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello,
could your bot merge my old name, GreatOrangePumpkin, with the current one, Tomcat7, in list such as Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations? Regards.-- Tomcat ( 7) 20:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
This edit removed legitimate admins including one ArbCom member.
—
Berean Hunter
(talk) 14:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Soooo, it's that time of year again. Any chance you might be interested in running for Arbcom? : ) - jc37 22:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello, a couple of questions / comments for you if I may. (1) Does your bot still add main page appearance dates to WP:FA2012, [[WP:FA2011] etc? I can spot several on the 2012 page alone that have appeared recently but have not been marked as such: HMS New Zealand (1911), Charles Villiers Stanford and United States v. Wong Kim Ark to name but three. (2) The main page appearance dates are in wikilinked format, which hasn't been the way that things are done for some time; I don't know if this is still how the bot adds dates, but if so, would it be possible to change this? And if the dates are manually reset to non-wikilinked format, will the bot accept or revert this? (3) Your bot is fighting with GimmeBot about the new name of this featured artice; GimmeBot correctly updated the link to avoid pointing at a dab page, but your bot didn't like it... Thanks, Bencherlite Talk 16:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)