Talk:Monty Hall problem/RfC

THIS PAGE IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND IS NOT YET READY TO BE SUBMITTED AS AN RFC

Request For Comment

Which approach to the Monty Hall problem should we choose; Approach One, Approach Two, or Approach Three? (Details below.)

History of the Content Dispute:

Monty Hall problem has attracted a number of editors experts in the areas of statistics and probability, as well as a number of non-mathematicians who are interested in the subject. Among these editors there has been a long-running dispute over the content of the article. This dispute has, in the past, led to behavior that ended up as an arbcom case and some users being banned.

The good news is that the arbcom ruling was completely successful. Among the remaining editors there has not only been civility, but a genuine good-faith effort to arrive at a consensus concerning the content. Alas, all efforts at mediation and compromise have failed to reach consensus. There really is an intractable difference of opinion about what the content of the page should be.

Because of the lack of progress, I (Guy Macon) proposed that we attempt to resolve this content dispute through Wikipedia Content Dispute Resolution as detailed in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Resolving content_disputes. There was a strong consensus to do so (one editor disagreed), and agreement that all parties would agree to abide by the consensus of the larger Wikipedia community. This RfC is the next step in that process. The consensus was that I (Guy Macon) would act as an informal "clerk", walking us through the process of content dispute resolution while remaining neutral and impartial on the actual content dispute.

This could be an excellent test case for some of the ideas that have been brought up at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Content dispute resolution.

Steps Already Taken

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Resolving content disputes Lists the following steps for resolving a content dispute:

Ask for a third opinion at Wikipedia:Third opinion. (Not applicable - this step is for disputes involving only two editors)

Ask about the subject at a subject-specific Wikipedia:WikiProject talk page. Archived requests at WP:WPMATH: [1][2] [3] [4] [5]

Ask for help at a relevant noticeboard: Archive of thread at neutrality noticeboard [6]

Informal mediation through The Mediation Cabal [7] (accepted by mediator user:K10wnsta)

Formal mediation of the dispute from the Mediation Committee: [8]

Requests for comment through article talk pages. This is where I believe we are now.

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Resolving content disputes lists the RfC as the final step. Wikipedia:Mediation Committee. on the other hand, has a sidebar that appears to contain more steps, but this may simply reflect the fact that it describes all dispute resolutions, not just content dispute resolution. For example, it lists arbcom, and arbcom only deals with user behavior, not content disputes. If this step does not result in a consensus, we will explore this question further.

Instructions for adding comments

After considerable difficulty in arriving at a short description of exactly what the dispute is about, we arrived at two versions that show by example what the two main opinions are. Invitations were made for anyone to create a third or a fourth version, but none was forthcoming. In addition, at least one editor expressed the view that we should continue what we have been doing rather than having a RfC.

Anyone, whether directly involved or no. is invited to comment below. Create your own section by copying and editing one of the template and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your argument to a maximum of 500 words and if possible 100 words (shorter arguments are generally more persuasive). Arguments exceeding 500 words will, after a warning, be trimmed to size. You are, of course, free to present further/longer arguments on the article talk page or your talk page and link to them here, but be aware that some editors will only read the comment you place here, so make it count.

Support Approach One:

Approach One is to edit the page to be like Version One. A Diff of the two versions is here.

• Your argument goes here. Sign with ~~~~, copy this template and put the copy at the bottom of the section for the next person to use.

Support Approach Two:

Approach Two is to edit the page to be like Version Two. A Diff of the two versions is here.

• Your argument goes here. Sign with ~~~~, copy this template and put the copy at the bottom of the section for the next person to use.

Support Approach Three:

Approach Three is to abandon any attempt at following the steps of Wikipedia Content Dispute Resolution and to continue discussing this on the article talk page indefinitely.

• Your argument goes here. Sign with ~~~~, copy this template and put the copy at the bottom of the section for the next person to use.

Neutral:

This section is for those who do not support any of the above approaches.

• I am staying Neutral on the actual content dispute. Guy Macon (talk) 22:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• Your comment goes here. Sign with ~~~~, copy this template and put the copy at the bottom of the section for the next person to use.

Find Another Approach:

This is the place to propose another approach that is not listed above, to disagree as to whether this is the next step in Wikipedia Content Dispute Resolution, or any other procedural objections. If someone makes a good case for doing so, this RfC will be aborted, rewritten and restarted.

• My understanding is that the "Monty Hall Problem", as presented by Marylin vos Savant, (and I believe the earlier formulation by Selvin as well) is a form of Bertrand's paradox, in which one reasonable interpretation of the problem is equivalent to the Bertrand's box paradox. These two levels of confusion give rise to unending quarrels, at least in part because some alternate interpretations of the Monty Hall problem give rise to the same solution (i.e., no advantage to switch) that arises from an incorrect resolution of the "Bertrand's Box" puzzle. My suggestion: find a source that explains this clearly, and organize the page based on that. (To my mind, the Cecil Adams "Straight Dope" column referenced in the article makes this reasonably clear. But there are probably other references that are even better.) Solutions and explanations of the "standard" interpretation could be minimal, as long as they are correct (as presented, Carlton's solution neglects to make any reference to the key assumptions that characterize the "standard" interpretation), and as long as the explanations at Three Prisoners problem and Bertrand's Box are already sufficiently clear. (I haven't read the former, but the latter looks fine to me.) I don't know whether or not this would resolve the dispute in question. If nothing else, though, it may make it clear to both readers and editors that one should not simply assume that one interpretation or the other is correct or obvious. By doing so it might reduce some contentious edits. 139.99.16.28 (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Your argument goes here. Sign with ~~~~, copy this template and put the copy at the bottom of the section for the next person to use.