There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.
If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2019.
| Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.|
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with !
Talk:List of cognitive biases
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)
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. 220.127.116.11 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. 18.104.22.168 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. 22.214.171.124 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)
As long as there is no drum circle involved. 126.96.36.199 19:10, 14 September 2007 (MDT)
Actor-Observer-Bias = Fundamental attribution error?
Image that needs addition
https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/2000/1*71TzKnr7bzXU_l_pU6DCNA.jpeg Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 15:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)