Jump to content

User talk:77.180.191.167

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please read this: [1] --OpenFuture (talk) 12:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the interesting text. I might read it. But I doubt that this blog entry is a reliable source. Even if it were, the actual paper is a reliable source. --77.180.191.167 (talk) 13:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't need to be a reliable source. What is needed is for you to read it and think for yourself. That blog post explains why the paper is useless for the purposes you are trying to use it, namely say something about public opinion on wealth distribution. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the blog entry does not convince me. Well, yes it is not Sweden but "Sweden". So what? Well yes, two charts were fictional, only one real. So what? People did not choose the US distribution (that was the task: We presented respondents with the three pairwise combinations of these pie charts (in random order) and asked them to choose which nation they would rather join). Yes, there could be a more extrem distribution. But I don't see that the study because of that is totally biased. Secondly, and more importantly, the next task is not really touched by this fictionality or bias problem. --77.180.191.167 (talk) 13:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not surprised you aren't convinced but it definitely isn't the fault of the blog post. The were not told that the US distribution were the US distribution. They were presented with three distributions, two of which were fictional, without being told that. They were hence intentionally misinformed about what in this distribution was real and what was fictional. And since the two fictional distributions both were more equal than the real one, this provided a strong bias towards greater equality, as you would naturally believe that the middle distribution represented a real middle distribution.
Also see Opinion_poll#Potential_for_inaccuracy. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Secondly, and more importantly, the next task is not really touched by this fictionality or bias problem. --77.180.191.167 (talk) 13:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And why not, if I may ask? --OpenFuture (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why in the first place? --77.180.191.167 (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty obvious that feeding people biased information is going to result in a bias when you later ask them questions. They will think that realistic distributions look completely different, and have a much wider variability than what is true in reality. This will obviously influence their answers. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not. It depends on the precise information and the precise question. Elaborate in relation to the actual case, please. --77.180.191.167 (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I did in the comment you just replied too. Also the blog post you read elaborated a lot. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is not correct. If this much debated paper is obviously and completely biased and its results nothing worth I am sure there must be plenty papers that state this fact. Name some. --77.180.191.167 (talk) 15:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why must there be plenty of papers saying that? Science is not a online web forum where people fight about petty things. Anyone who has any idea about polling bias, and any understanding of the maths and economics of wealth and income distributions, as you now should have since I've explained this to you, will understand in what way this paper is flawed. It's not really that difficult. I am as such convinced that you buy now understand exactly what I am saying and what the problems is with the paper. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Edit warring[edit]

You should also know that what you are doing now is edit warring and not allowed. You have done three reverts, a fourth one will violate WP:3RR and may lead you to being blocked. Please stop edit warring. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The normal practice on Wikipedia is called [[WP:BRD|"Bold, Revert, Discuss"]. That means you make an edit, somebody who disagrees reverts it and starts discussing it in the talk page. The we discuss on the talk page until a consensus is reached. You of course didn't do that, you immediately reverted my revert, and the results in a revert war. Don't start revert wars, they are not constructive.

I then added tags instead, to stop the revert warring. The you reverted the tags. Don't do that, it's vandalism.

Try to work according to Wikipedia policies, which are based on WP:CONSENSUS, and if consensus can't be found, use official dispute resolution processes. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I still don't see your reason for the tags. You did not substantiate any. --77.180.191.167 (talk) 13:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did, you just refuse to listen to what I say. That poll is deeply flawed and intentionally biased. By only including that, the section becomes obviously and self-evidently biased. I'm convinced you understand this. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I really can't find it. Besides, that That poll is deeply flawed and intentionally biased is an opinion that should be substantiated through reliable sources. --77.180.191.167 (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Reuters link is reliable, and that should be good enough for you. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which Reuters link? --77.180.191.167 (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/03/25/swedish-inequality-datapoint-of-the-day/ --OpenFuture (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Felix Salmon thinks that the paper's results are invalid. If he had published this criticism in a peer reviewed journal we could view it is a reliable source for questioning the validity of the results of a peer reviewed article. But not on a reuters blog. --77.180.191.167 (talk) 16:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's just excuses. Things are not automatically true because they are in a peer-reviewed journal. Especially, thinks claimed about public opinion, maths or politics are not automatically true just because they are published in a peer-reviewed journal about psychology. See also Sokal affair (or for that matter, any study claiming better than placebo results from Homeopathy). Felix Salmon is enough of an authority on these things for his criticism to be valid. The whole point of peer-review is that other knowledgeable people can criticize. Nobody peer-reviews the peer-reviews. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Things are not automatically true because they are in a peer-reviewed journal. That is trivial. I hold that most peer reviewed articles hold falsities or at least not real truths. That is shown by the single fact that many assertions of peer review articles contradict those of other peer review articles.

But the standard for an assertion to be made in wikipedia is not truth but reliable source. you know that. --77.180.191.81 (talk) 09:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I have provided a reliable source, explaining why the two conclusions everybody grabs onto with that paper, are incorrect. You can *not* say that Americans prefer Swedens wealth distribution, nor can you say that they underestimate the wealth inequality in the US. I can believe both those statements are true, but this paper does not support those conclusions. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:77.180.191.167&oldid=446799885"