Content deleted Content added
Kim Bruning (talk | contribs) m →DK Effect is Simply Autocorrelation: + why I say that |
Kim Bruning (talk | contribs) →DK Effect is Simply Autocorrelation: Additional (possibly redundant) request for more detail here. |
||
Line 63:
I looked into this, the archived discussion doesn't seem to be particularly convincing on why not to mention dissent here. The scientific articles quoted by Fix seem rather convincing (if not damning) on the maths. But I get that they haven't been cited as often as the Dunning Kruger article they're pointing at. I'm pretty sure I can't get away with AFDing the article or something crazy like that. But... I do think that NPOV allows me to put the counterveiling point of view that Dunning-Kruger's paper is bad because (given sources claim) they messed up their maths. --[[User:Kim Bruning|Kim Bruning]] ([[User talk:Kim Bruning|talk]]) 00:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC) <small> ''(Even if they didn't mess up their maths, they definitely did maths in a way that has been confusing to skilled scientists. They may have ended up confusing themselves, this seems plausible based on the cited sources. Either way, not Wikipedia's battle: But for sure we can write that not everyone thinks the effect is real!)'' </small>
== Discussion after GAN review ==
| |||