File under Ghost's guilty pleasures, a fat and growing file to be sure, but I'm sorry to admit, I greatly enjoyed the current mainpage FA on Confirmation bias. In fact it is one of the best FAs I've read in many moons. It is cogent, coherent and comprehensive. It doesn't read like it was written by a committee of IB students, nor is it a Franken-article of a bunch of cites stitched together. Even more impressive is that it is on a subject that is not one of the "pedia's" fortes (Pop-culture, Mil History or Bizzaro) but, rather, on one which it seems to be rather weak (at least judging from comments over the years by experts in the area).

Admittedly, cognitive science is not my forte either, but I know several here are well versed in that fascinating field of study (or at least better versed than I), so I'd appreciate their unbiased opinions of it.

I suspect that people here will react to your post on this article according to their preconceived notions of information on Wikipedia.

Or just shove it into the Annex.

Very true. The house POV is apparently that there is nothing whatsoever good on WP. In fact, of course, there is plenty that is good. The catch is that it's not easy to know what is good and what just looks good.


Point proven I think.

I find this odd: the featured article says that another name for confirmation bias is "myside bias".

This phrase has been mentioned in the news only one time in the past 109 years, according to Google News archives.

Wikipedia has a sort of self-adjusting mechanism by which any usage it reports as common, becomes more common as a result. They can't even mess up with words that you'd think would not be cromulent. If they weren't before, they soon will be. This leads to a sort of, erm, confirmation bias. It can be wrong or odd, but soon it's all over the net anyway.

Have you ever approached a yellow light at an intersection, wondering if you have time to make it over the nearest line and into the intersection, before it turns red? If you step on the gas, often you can make it and you then think: "Ha, I made the right decision to step on it." But if you decide against, and hit the brake, almost always it does indeed turn red before you get there, and you then think: "Ha, I made the right decision to brake." So, no matter what you do, it seems you decided right, and you get to feel good. Wikipedia is sometimes that way. It's very comforting.

Anyone who bothers to read a small fraction of what longtime posters have been posting at The Wikipedia Review for lo! these many long years would grasp the fact that few of us have stomachs for taste-testing the ephemeral glut of Wikipediot produce so long as a single innocent was drawn, quartered, and cannibalized in the process.

Now Bugger Off !!!

Jon

Hey, you pesky kids!

Get OFF my lawwwn!

Cache's Law'n' — The longer people persist in discussin' like moral morons, the greater the probability that you'll have to bring in the Nazis.

Jon

Confirmation bias: Looking for good articles in Wikipedia to support your view that Wikipedia is actually pretty good.

See this is why I rarely bother to post anything of substance on WR.
John Limey is right, this place is basically the fucking People's Front Of Judea.

Anal Bead Game, you would make a fine Wikipedia admin...in fact I wouldn't be surprised if you weren't one already... definitely Hivemind-worthy if not sponge-worthy.

How witty.
I'm sure Zombie Oscar Wilde must be on his way to eat your brain for coming up with such drollery.

Actually, that article is one of the better ones I've read at WP.

Yeah what did Wikipedia ever do for us

I have not read the topic but one of the interesting things about confirmation bias is than smart people are no less susceptible that not so smart people.

I thought use the language on in the opening intro is a little me-too-committee-like crappy and gave up hope at that point. However, it is the sort of topic which one would wish everyone contributing to the project had not just read but studied and been tested on. All the same, even if they are been made to, many would just go back to grinding their POVs and uploading porn afterwards.

Come to think about it. An interesting study could be made of the degree of satisfaction reward as a driving element derived from wholescale porn uploading and porn star biographical data compiling in comparison to engagement in the futile tribal wars found on other topics, and their different natures. There is a hook for everyone to hang themselves on.

As for being the People's Front Of the Wikipedia, pah! They are wankers. We are the Wikipedian People's Front!

I've never experienced that situation.

Really? Anymore it's hard to find traffic lights without the ticket-writer cameras.

Of course if they had anything to do with safety, they'd find some way to physically stop you from running a red light, like the arm they throw down at a railroad crossing—er wait... they don't actually have those 'round here (not cost-effective I suppose).

Exactly my thought. May a thousand of these arrive in Greg's mail.

I thought Wikipedia is most like, "Okay, there's a yellow light up ahead; do we accelerate to beat it the red light or brake?"

...

"Er.... Anyone?"

"What authority do you have to ask that question?"
"Have you got good sources for the fact the light will turn red"
"Yellow light? Isn't it amber?"
"Eric is teh gahy."
"Please note I have opened a RfC on whether...HEY! WHATTHEFUCKISTHA...."

Yes. You remember Neil and Buzz landing on the moon? They've got the 1202 and 1201 alarms. There's no time and nobody's seen them. One 24 year-old engineer named Jack Garman (T-H-L-K-D) knows that they mean, and since it's his responsiblity to know and he's the only expert, they take his word for it without even a question. Which is good, since there's no time for questions. They landed with 17 seconds of fuel.

I dunno...maybe provide us with our entire raison d'etre for being here.

My raisin debt to Wikipedia is about twenty sultanas. And now I must go and make some scones.