Template:Did you know nominations/Uncertainty effect
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by BorgQueen (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Uncertainty effect
- ... that people are prone to expressing such a strong distaste for uncertainty that they might value a $50 giftcard more
as lessthan a lottery that yields a $50 or a $100 giftcard with equal probability? Source: Gneezy, List, and Wu (2006)- Reviewed:
Created by KindE26 (talk). Self-nominated at 17:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC).
| Length | Newness | Cited hook | Interest | Sources | Neutrality | Plagiarism/paraphrase |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
6000+ characters, created w/in 7-day bound of nomination, interesting hook (irrational humans FTW!), hook fact source accepted in good faith, sources look good EXCEPT see note 4 below, NPOV all good (intellectual push-pull is amply covered), no evidence of plagiarism
RECOMMENDED HOOK EDIT:
- ALT1:
... that people express such a strong distaste for uncertainty that they might choose a $50 gift card over a lottery that yields a $50 or a $100 gift card with equal probability?
Notes:
- I think per our house style "Critiques and Alternative Explanations" [title case] should be "Critiques and alternative explanations" [sentence case]
- The preferred spelling for gift card per Wikt is two words
- the See also section, consider replacing "Risk aversion (and its shorter subsection on direct risk aversion)" with {{slink|Risk aversion (psychology)#Direct risk aversion}}
- Citation 4 is a Jonah Lehrer article; I don't know what our policy on serial plagiarists is but if you can find another source that says the same thing, that might be good
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| QPQ: None required. |
Overall: 
I've deleted the Lehrer-sourced paragraph and renamed the section heading as suggested. BorgQueen (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Could someone please review the revised hook ALT1 which was suggested by Jengod as the reviewer? (It strikes me that it contradicts the original hook but is more in line with what the article actually says...but depending on how picky you are, maybe it oversimplifies what the original source says? Not my area so I defer to someone else. Thanks.) Cielquiparle (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Cielquiparle: You're right. I'd use the original hook. BorgQueen (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
I also agree. The article talks about experiments involving valuation, not choice, so ALT0 is more accurate than ALT1. ALT1 is also ambiguously worded: is the "with equal probability" referring to how likely the people are to make a choice, or how likely the lottery is to yield a gift card? I don't think ALT0 has any problematic oversimplification. So I prefer ALT0 over ALT1. I think we're still good to go with ALT0 so I've restored the green tick in case it makes a difference for the bots. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)- Good by me. Thanks everyone. jengod (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Cielquiparle: You're right. I'd use the original hook. BorgQueen (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- Surely the word "as" in "they might value a $50 giftcard as less than a lottery" should be removed? --JBL (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- I still don't get it. To me (layperson) it seems backwards, and I read it the way Jengod seemed to read it the first time. Referring to the article:
individuals were willing to pay $38 for a $50 gift card, but were only willing to pay $28 for a lottery ticket that would yield a $50 or $100 gift card with equal probability.
I'm getting stuck on how that is valuing the $50 gift card as "less than" the lottery ticket. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)- You're right, it's reversed -- it should be "more than". --JBL (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- Ok I misread it. Lol sorry. I amended the hook accordingly. BorgQueen (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- Could I propose the following then? It adds the word "ticket" after "lottery" (which I think is clearer), but also strikes "expressing" to keep the total character count under 200 (and eliminates one instance of "a"):
- ALT0a: ... that people are prone to such a strong distaste for uncertainty that they might value a $50 giftcard more than a lottery ticket that yields a $50 or $100 giftcard with equal probability?
- Cielquiparle (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- Could I propose the following then? It adds the word "ticket" after "lottery" (which I think is clearer), but also strikes "expressing" to keep the total character count under 200 (and eliminates one instance of "a"):
- Ok I misread it. Lol sorry. I amended the hook accordingly. BorgQueen (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- You're right, it's reversed -- it should be "more than". --JBL (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- I still don't get it. To me (layperson) it seems backwards, and I read it the way Jengod seemed to read it the first time. Referring to the article: