Talk:List of cognitive biases

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Contents

[edit] Gigantic Sucking Black Hole of Red Links

This article alone could cause Redlink Implosion on RW. It's undeniably a good article, but what are WE doing with it? Can we add to it, or do it any better than WP did it? And are we inteding to fill those redlinks here?! DogP 17:42, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

Ignore DogP: he's not flirty at all. SJGsjg 17:50, 14 September 2007 (MDT)
I say wipe the links (I see it's being done...). Anyone interested in writing about c biases will find this list and link up whatever they write. What was this, someone's halloween present list? humanbe in 18:24, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

[edit] whoa, whoa

Guys I appreciate the de-red linking efforts, but this is a list whose purpose is to serve as a reference to make these articles, removing the red links to these removes the point of this entirely. 24.141.169.255 18:27, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

That would be easier to buy if they were disappearing on a regular basis. By the way, DP, um, you removed frickin BLUE LINKS in your zealousness!!!! Now I'm going to have to revert the whole thing and redo it! humanbe in 18:40, 14 September 2007 (MDT)
There is nothing inherently wrong about red links to articles that are worth having. 24.141.169.255 18:41, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

Not at all, but I haven't seen a single one of those articles being created, and those red links have been around for quite a while. Whatever. I give up. DogP 18:45, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

Hey Dog, whatcha gonna do about the BLUE LINKS you removed? Go backa few revisions, find them, and put them back in? humanbe in 18:49, 14 September 2007 (MDT)
Sorry I didn't mean to sound short, its not a big deal one way or another, if I or others decide to make the articles I can just remake the links. Its not worth getting bent out of shape about. I am just tired and stressed, my apologies if I came off harsh. 24.141.169.255 18:47, 14 September 2007 (MDT)
As I look at this list, I see no reason for most of the articles. Most items are described in the list. Sure, we "could" have them. When someone writes them, they can add them to the list. As a "to do" list, this does not need red links. As red links, they won't attract attention - we have over a thousand single link wanted pages. Anyone who knows this stuff and wants to write about it will find this list and link what they write about. This means you, too. All you need to do is add "write cognitive bias articles and add links to list" to your todo list. Having them be red links serves no useful reference purpose (it would if we only had 73 "wanted articles", of course).
I know you're worn out, but so is "Crewe Red Link". You wouldn't believe the crap people have linked to over the last few months! Anyway, do we have peace? Shall I chase down those blue links? humanbe in 18:49, 14 September 2007 (MDT)
I put the handful of blue links that got lost back in. All I had to do was compare to an old diff, so it wasn;t that bad. whew. hehe. Now, where's Mr. B. of the multicolored clones? humanbe in 19:09, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

As long as there is no drum circle involved. 24.141.169.255 19:10, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

[edit] Actor-Observer-Bias = Fundamental attribution error?

Aren't these biases exactly the same? The descriptions do not differ in any point, or do they? — Unsigned, by: 84.62.120.94 / talk / contribs (signed by bot) 10:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Image that needs addition

https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/2000/1*71TzKnr7bzXU_l_pU6DCNA.jpeg FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 15:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

[edit] SciShow on cognitive biases

To paraphrase Alexander Pope... We live but to die, and reason but to err. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
support
Community
Tools