| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Article | Monty Hall problem |
| Status | Closed |
| Request date | 18:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC) |
| Requesting party | Unknown |
| Mediator(s) | K10wnsta - Talk |
| Comment | Moved to MedCom |
Request details
Where is the dispute?
Who is involved?
- Rick Block ( talk · contribs)
- Martin Hogbin ( talk · contribs)
- JeffJor ( talk · contribs)
- Glkanter ( talk · contribs)
- Nijdam ( talk · contribs)
- Kmhkmh ( talk · contribs)
- Father Goose ( talk · contribs)
What is the dispute?
A collection of editors have been unhappy with the article Monty Hall problem for a long time (Martin and Glkanter, and recently Jeff). In particular, there are mathematical sources (such as the Morgan et al. reference cited in the article) that criticize the popular "unconditional" solutions as not necessarily addressing the question the problem asks (see Talk:Monty Hall problem/FAQ) and explicitly say the problem should be addressed using conditional probability. These editors have argued (for years now) that this is a minor point that most readers do not care about and that the article should either ignore these sources completely or the points they make should be relegated to a section on variants. This is a featured article that has been through 2 FARCs. The problem itself is renowned for causing intractable arguments, among lay people and mathematicians. I don't know the details, but according to user:Kmhkmh a similar problem occurred on the German Wikipedia with the same article (which was a featured article there) with the result that the article was ultimately de-featured.
What would you like to change about this?
I would like the endless discussions to be settled. I would like the article to remain a featured article.
How do you think we can help?
A disinterested, outside party knowledgeable in Wikipedia policy with herculean patience able to resist getting sucked into the topic itself might be able to help structure a discussion leading to an amicable solution. This is a polarizing problem that both sides apparently see as black and white. I have tried to mediate, but since I am also viewed as one of the interested parties my attempts at mediation have not been very successful.
Mediator notes
Administrative notes
Discussion
I've never remotely heard of this but it sounds 'mathy' (wasn't Monty Hall a gameshow host?). Remaining emotionally indifferent is a strong suit of mine (even when I don't make a conscious effort), so if you'd like some input on the matter, let me know. If both parties agree to my participation, then I'll proceed to research the subject, read the article, analyze the scope of the dispute, and determine if it's something I could productively mediate.
--
K10wnsta (
talk) 02:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
This is from a few sections above:
- What would you like to change about this?
- "I would like the endless discussions to be settled. I would like the article to remain a featured article."
Rick Block says nothing about ultimately recognizing the will of the consensus, or making the article better, even though he has recently admitted the article has NPOV issues. Nope. Just end the arguing, and remain an FA. That's apparently good enough for him. I disagree. Glkanter ( talk) 17:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- I've been paying attention to the dispute out of the corner of my eye, but I'd like things spelled out for me so I understand everyone's position. Glkanter, assuming no one were "standing in your way", in what way do you feel the article is inadequate, and what specific changes would you make to address those inadequacies?-- Father Goose ( talk) 06:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for asking. I think my response to this brand new 'official' informal mediation thread on the talk page covers your question. What I didn't spell out in that response, but I've said many other times, is that, in my opinion there is a great over-emphasis of the Morgan paper. To the extent that it badly violates NPOV. Both in terms of the criticism of the simple solutions, as well as the amount of ink spent on non-Selvin/vos Savant issues. Morgan, etc. are published, so they're in the article. But it shouldn't be skewed the way it is. And it was way worse 14 months before. I think everything I just wrote is consistent with the consensus of the editors that was formed a few weeks (maybe a month, now) ago. Glkanter ( talk) 16:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
|
| |
| Article | Monty Hall problem |
| Status | Closed |
| Request date | 18:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC) |
| Requesting party | Unknown |
| Mediator(s) | K10wnsta - Talk |
| Comment | Moved to MedCom |
Request details
Where is the dispute?
Who is involved?
- Rick Block ( talk · contribs)
- Martin Hogbin ( talk · contribs)
- JeffJor ( talk · contribs)
- Glkanter ( talk · contribs)
- Nijdam ( talk · contribs)
- Kmhkmh ( talk · contribs)
- Father Goose ( talk · contribs)
What is the dispute?
A collection of editors have been unhappy with the article Monty Hall problem for a long time (Martin and Glkanter, and recently Jeff). In particular, there are mathematical sources (such as the Morgan et al. reference cited in the article) that criticize the popular "unconditional" solutions as not necessarily addressing the question the problem asks (see Talk:Monty Hall problem/FAQ) and explicitly say the problem should be addressed using conditional probability. These editors have argued (for years now) that this is a minor point that most readers do not care about and that the article should either ignore these sources completely or the points they make should be relegated to a section on variants. This is a featured article that has been through 2 FARCs. The problem itself is renowned for causing intractable arguments, among lay people and mathematicians. I don't know the details, but according to user:Kmhkmh a similar problem occurred on the German Wikipedia with the same article (which was a featured article there) with the result that the article was ultimately de-featured.
What would you like to change about this?
I would like the endless discussions to be settled. I would like the article to remain a featured article.
How do you think we can help?
A disinterested, outside party knowledgeable in Wikipedia policy with herculean patience able to resist getting sucked into the topic itself might be able to help structure a discussion leading to an amicable solution. This is a polarizing problem that both sides apparently see as black and white. I have tried to mediate, but since I am also viewed as one of the interested parties my attempts at mediation have not been very successful.
Mediator notes
Administrative notes
Discussion
I've never remotely heard of this but it sounds 'mathy' (wasn't Monty Hall a gameshow host?). Remaining emotionally indifferent is a strong suit of mine (even when I don't make a conscious effort), so if you'd like some input on the matter, let me know. If both parties agree to my participation, then I'll proceed to research the subject, read the article, analyze the scope of the dispute, and determine if it's something I could productively mediate.
--
K10wnsta (
talk) 02:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
This is from a few sections above:
- What would you like to change about this?
- "I would like the endless discussions to be settled. I would like the article to remain a featured article."
Rick Block says nothing about ultimately recognizing the will of the consensus, or making the article better, even though he has recently admitted the article has NPOV issues. Nope. Just end the arguing, and remain an FA. That's apparently good enough for him. I disagree. Glkanter ( talk) 17:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- I've been paying attention to the dispute out of the corner of my eye, but I'd like things spelled out for me so I understand everyone's position. Glkanter, assuming no one were "standing in your way", in what way do you feel the article is inadequate, and what specific changes would you make to address those inadequacies?-- Father Goose ( talk) 06:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for asking. I think my response to this brand new 'official' informal mediation thread on the talk page covers your question. What I didn't spell out in that response, but I've said many other times, is that, in my opinion there is a great over-emphasis of the Morgan paper. To the extent that it badly violates NPOV. Both in terms of the criticism of the simple solutions, as well as the amount of ink spent on non-Selvin/vos Savant issues. Morgan, etc. are published, so they're in the article. But it shouldn't be skewed the way it is. And it was way worse 14 months before. I think everything I just wrote is consistent with the consensus of the editors that was formed a few weeks (maybe a month, now) ago. Glkanter ( talk) 16:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)