Talk:Woozle effect

Original research

I thought that the reasons why I removed the Examples section and the last paragraph in the Origin and usage section were obvious but perhaps I need to explain. Let's look at the Domestic violence section. There isn't a source in the Canada subsection that mentiones the woozle effect. What someone did is take Statistics Canada stats and OCTEVAW statements and criticize them as an example of the woozle effect. The sources do not actually say "woozle". The same problem in the United Kindom subsection. Someone used official stats and statements by organizations like the Women's Aid Federation in England and made the argument that this was an example of the woozle effect. The same goes for the USA subsection where not even Gelles [1] who according to some sources coined the term uses the term woozle effect. What remains of the section Examples is the Battered child syndrome subsection and it's the only section that contains a source – Gelles & Straus (1988) – that actually says "woozle". The ref is used for only one short sentence and I won't object if someone expands and rewrites the section based on the Gelles & Straus source and writes something like "Sociologists Gelles and Straus argue that this and that is an example of..." but the rest, the Kempe study and the newspaper articles that are used as "examples", do not actually say anything about the woozle effect.

The last paragraph in the Origin and usage section contained a sentence based on a study by Gelles that didn't discuss the woozle effect and a claim that was sourced to a document by the organization "mediaradar" which appears to be a obscure advocacy group. What that document says is that VAWA advocates "misrepresent the truth of partner abuse" and that Gelles "dubs these factoids the 'woozle effect'". If that's the case then it should be possible to cite Gelles as a source and not this organization which doesn't appear to be a reliable source.

I removed the content because it was a textbook example of WP:original research and WP:Synth. There is no evil agenda as one user alleges in his edit summaries. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

If you feel some of the Gelles and Straus content is retrievable then surely you should do exactly that, rather than just remove it. You seem to have a structure in mind for the content. Wikipedia relies on the expertise of all its contributors, including yours. Otherwise those less trusting than myself might think you are indulging in censorship and removing content for personally satisfying reasons.

Wikpedia should not only be fair, but also appear to be fair. Atm we have someone with expertise who is not willing to use it to improve the page. This does not look good for those browsing these talk pages.CSDarrow (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Someone woozling won't say their woozling. Thus these are all excellent examples. Reverting censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.7.147.17 (talk) 20:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Someone woozling won't say they're woozling, but what we need is reliable 2nd and 3rd party sources saying that they're woozling, not some anonymous random person on the internet saying they're woozling. Please have a look at the policies on original research, original synthesis and reliable sources that Sonicyouth86 linked above. The allegations of censorship or some evil agenda are pretty disingenuous. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 19:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

If something is unequivocally and self evidently woozling there would be no need for what you suggest. The common sense and good judgement of the editors can be used. Accusing others of being disingenuous is probably not a good thing. CSDarrow (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

There would be no need for what I suggest? All I suggested was that reliable 2nd were required, which is completely standard at Wikipedia, as I'm sure you know. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

even if there were a third party source that says "So and so woozled"- so what? how is that encyclopedic? there would need to be some additional commentary /analysis showing how or why the woozling was an important or relevant example. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Now that would be an interesting precedent to set. Very few of the citations on gender issues do more than just state an undemonstrated position. I would join you in support of that. CSDarrow (talk) 02:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

KEEP THE EXAMPLES

After a thorough read of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, it is my conclusion that the examples that were provided should stand (and be restored).

"SYNTH is original research by synthesis, not synthesis per se." Consequently, the examples are OR-free.

1 : The examples provided are just that. Mayhaps someone would prefer the title Illustrations? Either way, the examples are there to demonstrate real-life woozles, as properly-defined earlier in the article. To my reading, they provide zero new, or original research. There is no pretense of adding new information to the well-supported definition and description of Woozle.

2 : The examples are legitimate statements of fact. Criticism involves opinion and is an inappropriate description of the contents of these examples. If someone wants to verify the sources of each example to ascertain their authenticity, go ahead, and remember to provide a detailed comment of your findings (preferably in TALK, first). This gives the author (and other editors) the means to assess your findings and, where applicable, correct their work. It is also professional and courteous (IMO).

3 : Take, for example, the second illustration within Domestic Violence - Canada. The "woozley" article cleary cites Statistics Canada 2011. Ah!, you say, yet the StatsCan info being compared to is from 2009. Yes it is ; and if you look up the 2011 StatsCan document referred to in the woozle, it in turn references the 2009 data. Conclusion : this is a bona fida example of woozle. The conclusion was NOT arrived at via WP:SYNTH (and even less so via WP:OR). It was arrived at via synthesis.

4 : For heaven's sake, let us all remember that the intent of WP policy is to limit to a minimum leading or misleading entries, especially the grossly so. WP policy is NOT intended to be legalistically applied universally at the minutest levels of detail everywhere. Because we are human and are wont to get carried away in our enthusiasms, pages such as WP:What_SYNTH_is_not were created to remind us.

There has been a lot of back and forth on this article, so I am posting this assessment in TALK before proceeding with restoring the examples. If you disagree with restoring the examples, please refute clearly points 1, 2 and 3. -- Visispace (talk) 05:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOR says "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented". Until that is done, the examples should not be in the article. Dougweller (talk) 12:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Notability

Help requested. This article may not have (WP:Notability) significant coverage from reliable, independent sources.

I searched for sources. First I searched Google (https://www.google.com/search?q="woozle effect"&start=990 less than 300 hits) but the sources were not reliable. Nearly all were small, inactive blogs and self published (WP:SPS). An exception, AVoiceForMen, lacks editorial integrity: Southern Poverty Law Center keeps the site on a watchlist of "woman-hating sites" and notes it "is essentially a mouthpiece for its editor, Paul Elam".

I searched again, excluding many domains (wordpress.com, avoiceformen.com, reddit.com) to avoid WP:SPS. Hits are then mostly primary sources. That's not ideal: WP:Notability "secondary sources [...] provide the most objective evidence of notability" and '"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed'.

For primary sources, Google Scholar has 74 hits for "woozle effect" which is small for a body of research. Of the first ten hits, 4 are written by RJ Gelles, and at least another 4 cite Gelles.

From the current references, Donald D. Dutton does seem to be a good source: at least his book "Rethinking Domestic Violence" covers the topic significantly. He is 6 of the 24 references, but for notability "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." The rest appears to be primary sources all, when we'd prefer secondary, and some of it does not mention "woozle effect" but instead only uses "woozle" (the same way it uses Heffalump, as a figment or something elusive)--parts of the Origin and Usage section may be misleading for the same reason.

My tentative evaluation: "Woozle Effect" may be used by a very small number of academics but may not yet reached the Notability for a standalone page. One solution may be to create a standalone for Woozles which mentions Woozle Effects. That is the treatment given to "Heffalump" and "Heffalump Trap" even though Heffalump Trap seems more notable than Woozle Effect.

Yamrway (talk) 03:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know, I think there's definitely enough discussion of it in reliable sources to establish notability. Try google scholar instead of google to get higher quality sources: [2]. Also, what in the world could you mean by "primary sources" in the context of a concept in social science?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I did search Google Scholar (read above...). Social sciences have primary sources too, otherwise it wouldn't make sense to direct me to search for research.

I do not see enough "discussion." Outside of a very small number of academics using the phrase incredibly sparsely, there's no discussion. No secondary sources report on this use. We could likewise have a standalone page for every single time "Heffalump Trap" was used (and there's far more notability there, honestly) but wiki is not for lists like that unless the topic is Notable. Yamrway (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

How are you using the term "primary sources" here, then? Also, if you accept Dutton, why not Gelles, who discusses the term at reasonable length in the sources cited in the article, e.g. Violence in the Family:

The "Woozle Effect" begins when one investigator reports a finding, such as Gelles's (1974) report that ... [blah blah blah] ... In the "Woozle Effect," a second investigator will then cite the first study's data, but without the qualifications (such as done by Straus, 1974a). Others will then cite both reports and the qualified data gain the status of generalizable "truth."

There's more along these lines in Gelles's other work. Makes two sources, which is usually enough to meet GNG.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I "accept" Gelles but he is not a good measure of Notability because he is a primary source. This wiki article even cites him as one of the possible coiners of the phrase.

Primary sources here are the social scientsts and social science publications producing original research, studying this phenomenon. For comparison think of "Domestic Violence," another social science concept. We know DV is Notable primarily because there is "significant coverage from reliable, independent sources" particularly secondary sources (sources--other than the researchers--who report on research). It also helps that the volume of research into DV is huge.

Contrast: "woozle effect" has 74 hits on Google Scholar and 277 hits on Google total. There seems to be no significant coverage at all from reliable secondary sources, and the primary sources are limited to an extremely small group of researchers. If so this seems exactly "Non-notable." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamrway (talk • contribs) 05:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Mistaken references

There appears to be a striking divide between the referenced sources and the claims made about those sources on this page. Editors beware, may need many NPOV changes.

Roth, Philip L.; SWITZER III, FRED S. (1999).

Roth is not discussing the Woozle Effect at all. He is discussing approximation techniques called "missing data techniques." Missing data which is to be approximated is referred to a Woozle (or Heffalump), the only context the word is used. The article does not mention cognitive or social bias, or repeated research citing at all. The sentence which cited Roth:

Selection of data and design of research instruments to gather raw data are linked to the creation of the Woozle effect on many fields of study.

is in violation of WP:NOR (or needs a new citation) because that is not Roth's conclusion or even on his topic or field. This sentence is also similar to a later sentence ("...the presence of the woozle effect in many areas..."). I have removed the sentence for now to reduce redundancy and the need for a new citation.

Roy F. Baumeister; Kathleen D. Vohs (2007).

The full text of this volume is searchable online. It does not contain the word "woozle." The sentence which references it,

The woozle effect is seen as an example of confirmation bias[16] and linked to belief perseverance.[17]

is sufficiently sourced already because [16] "Rethinking Domestic Violence" discusses woozles, confirmation bias, and belief perseverance. I have moved reference [16] to the end of this sentence and removed this reference.

Donald G. Dutton. (2006)

4 redundant references, switched to {{rp}} format.

Kinchin, Niamh (20 MAR 2007).

The full text of this is searchable online (quick google search). "Woozle" does not appear in the body, only in the title of a cited work. I have removed the reference and edited the sentence citing it accordingly.

Kinchin, Niamh (20 MAR 2007)

Again this reference uses "Woozle" in a way wholly unrelated to this article:

The reader is obviously familiar with Wohlwill's (1963) infamous woozle hunt. It would appear that the woozle, that is, a general agreement concerning the underlying processes in human cognitive development, remains as elusive as ever.

For starters, this usage in 1963 predates the coining of "Woozle effect" as described in Wiki's article (1979). More, Kinchin's use is directly opposed to "Woozle Effect." Woozle Effect is a problem of cognitive or social bias, but Kinchin's Woozle is a desirable, elusive, and accurate consensus: a synonym for "prize." I have removed the reference and edited the sentence citing it accordingly.

Many remaining sources are paywalled and I urge editors to try to check their accuracy (as I will) because so many citations here are in error.

Yamrway (talk) 05:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Use in research

First, I cannot express my contempt more highly than for wikipedia editors who have a policy of REVERT rather than a policy of IMPROVE and FIX.

There is no greater problem onthe wiki than arrogant editors that disrespect and abuse other people by FIRST REVERTING edits.

If your policy is REVERT FIRST, than you should be ashamed of yourself. You do not know the hardships people go through to edit anything, you just blithely delete their efforts.

HEre is an academic paper about human trafficking that uses and tries to measure "woozles" using it by that name

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/224391.pdf Weiner, Neil; Hala, Nicole, 2011-07-06, "New York City Trafficking Assessment Project, 2007-2008", http://hdl.handle.net/1902.2/31601 Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research Section: "The “Woozle Effect” in Human Trafficking Research"

I don't know how to add that to the article, where it would go, but it shows that Woozle is used by acadmeics in academic studies.

IF YOU HAVE A POLICY OF REVERT FIRST, THEN I TELL YOU NOW, IT IS INCUMBENT ON YOU TO HELP ME FIGURE OUT WHERE AND HOW TO ADD EXAMPLES OF ACADEMIC USE TO THIS ARTICLE. 184.101.115.101 (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• What does any of this yelling have to do with Colbert's elephants, which you added to the article? Drmies (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Honest question: what do YOU think this "yelling" has to do with the instantaneous reverting of the section I added, WITHOUT having that editor discuss it with me on the talk page or at other pages? 184.101.115.101 (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Honest answer: adding Colbert's elephants is not a good-faith effort to improve the project, unless you don't have a clue as to what an encyclopedia should be. So take your pick: vandalism/trolling or incompetence. Drmies (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• • • It's CLEARLY INCOMPETENCE. Which should be met with ASSUME GOOD FAITH. And Improve just don't delete. But how was it met? WITH REVERT. As for Colbert's elephant, it's clearly described by the Woozle Effect. Now we can debate or co-edit the best way to phrase that, but adding it in by itself is not an act of vandalism. 184.101.115.101 (talk) 18:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

It's how we do things here. Read WP:BRD. You put some stuff in without sources. I didn't like it so I reverted it. Then we discuss it, which is what we're doing now. So maybe you can read up on WP:V (verifiability) and WP:RS (sourcing) and then explain why you think that material ought to go in the article, or even what it has to do with the article?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Well I've never heard that WIKI policy officially is REVERT FIRST. When I first got here it was ASSUME GOOD FAITH and IMPROVE don't DELETE. And TALK ABOUT IT ON THE TALK PAGE. Can you give me a citation that REVERT FIRST is the official WIKI policy? 184.101.115.101 (talk) 18:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

AS PART OF BRD, DID YOU FORGET:

Consider reverting only when necessary. It is not the intention of this page to encourage reverting. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed. Look at the article's edit history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun. If not, you may begin one (see this list for a glossary of common abbreviations you might see).

WIKIPEIDA IS A SICK COMMUNITY. YOUR QUICK REVERTS ARE PART OF THE REASON WHY.

184.101.115.101 (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Editing discussions are how decisions are made on Wikipedia...you win some, you lose some. Every editor on Wikipedia has been reverted so you shouldn't take this personally. From reading this conversation over, all that is happening is that your edit is being challenged and you are asked to provide a source. This same thing happens hundreds of times a day on Wikipedia, even to long-time editors and admins. So, find a source to support your edit if you think it deserves to be included.

It's no one else's responsibility to do your homework for you and spend time tracking down citations for you unless they have an interest in doing so. This is a volunteer project and editors spend time on what interests them. Alternatively, you could visit a WikiProject on a subject that interests you and ask for help on their Talk Page...you might find someone willing to help you out. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Took a shot at integrating the human trafficking report mentioned above into the article.-Godot13 (talk) 06:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

some sources

Understanding and Quantifying the Impact of Changes on Construction Labor Productivity: Integration of Productivity Factors and Quantification Methods, by Seulkee Lee, 2007, ProQuest, 786 pages ("woozle effect" gets a couple paragraphs on page 72... as part of explaining how Lee the author avoided the problem in their own literature-review).

Classifying Family Violence Whither the Woozle?	WR Schumm, MJ Martin, SR BOLLMAN…	Journal of Family …	1982	jfi.sagepub.com	hit#7	Cited by 21
RE-EVALUATION OF THE “NO DIFFERENCES” HYPOTHESIS CONCERNING GAY & LESBIAN PARENTING	WR Schumm	Psychological reports	2008	amsciepub.com	hit#29	Cited by 16
Violence in the family: A review of research in the seventies	RJ Gelles	Journal of Marriage and the Family	1980	JSTOR	hit#3	Cited by 396
Applying research on family violence to clinical practice	RJ Gelles	Journal of Marriage and the Family	1982	JSTOR	hit#6	Cited by 52
Family violence	RJ Gelles	Annual review of sociology	1985	JSTOR	hit#8	Cited by 166
Violence and pregnancy: are pregnant women at greater risk of abuse?	RJ Gelles	Journal of Marriage and the Family	1988	JSTOR	hit#4	Cited by 125
Processes explaining the concealment and distortion of evidence on gender symmetry in partner violence	MA Straus	European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research	2007	Springer	hit#2	Cited by 29
Gender symmetry in partner violence: dEvidence,dDenial,&dImplications 4 primary prevention&treatment	MA Straus, K Scott	… of Partner Violence. W.DC: American …	2007	fermat.unh.edu	hit#31	Cited by 10
The feminization of domestic violence in America: the woozle effect goes beyond rhetoric	NS Coney, WC Mackey	The Journal of Men's Studies	1999	Men's Studies Press	hit#1	Cited by 14
Father the Irrelevant Becomes Father the Underachieving	WC Mackey	The American Father	1996	Springer	hit#18	Cited by 0
Transforming a flawed policy: A call 2revive psychology&science in domestic violence research&practice	DG Dutton, K Corvo	Aggression and Violent Behavior	2006	Elsevier	hit#41	Cited by 149
Rethinking domestic violence	DG Dutton	[BOOK]	2011	books.google.com	hit#44	Cited by 239
Attitudinal characteristics of males who have engaged in spouse abuse	PH Neidig, DH Friedman, BS Collins	Journal of Family Violence	1986	Springer	hit#5	Cited by 112
Fatigue in cancer: A multidimensional approach	ML Winningham, MB Burke	[BOOK]	2000	books.google.com	hit#9	Cited by 22
Child sexual abuse allegations in the context of divorce: Issues for mothers	C Humphreys	British Journal of Social Work	1997	BASW	hit#10	Cited by 19
Intimate partner violence: Persistence of myths and implications for intervention	MK Ehrensaft	Children and Youth Services Review	2008	Elsevier	hit#11	Cited by 39

Have not verified all of these are WP:RS, sorry.  :-)   Grouped by author. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Is the male gender Woozled?

The inclusion of this of all things within the category 'Men's rights' suggests a strong bias in editing, especially as something entirely unsourced--Drowninginlimbo (talk) 02:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that was obviously someone trying to make a point. The addition of the category has already been reverted.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏͛ ¢ ⚞(^Ʌⱷ҅̆_⚲͜ⱷ᷇^ʌ)≼  02:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Well yes, it was me who reverted it. I just went to the Talk page so it was noted that I had reason in doing so--Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know who or why anyone added "men's rights" to this, but it was clearly a response to the feminists at reddit who tried in a group brigade to take it down because they felt "woozle effect" supported men's rights and harmed feminism. See the deletion log for links to reddit. It was a poor response, but that's where it came from. So to make it clear while there may or may not be some sort of bias in editing of this article, the bias that was being reacted to was a feminist supported brigade to bias wikipedia towards feminism. 174.17.215.31 (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Eating Fat is Unhealthy

The concept that eating fat is unhealthy and/or fattening, is a good example of the "Woozle effect".

As now documented in detail in several books, including a couple by science writer Gary Taubes, the idea was started by a part-time college student researcher employed by a US Senate sub-committee looking for nutrition recommendations. It was based on zero science, and has never been verified by any science.

The aforementioned books describe something similar to what here is called "the Woozle effect", where an unverified idea became little pink hearts on menus next to low-fat items.

Example relevance

As it's currently written, the Gambrill and Reiman example does not appear to be an example of the Woozle effect, but rather an example of simply poor scholarship. Were others to cite the Gambrill and Reiman text as evidence of the disease model of anxiety or of whatever else the authors were trying to get across, that would be an example of the Woozle effect. Until or unless this happens, I think this example should be removed (or, if this has already happened, the example should be rewritten to focus on that). 129.237.92.143 (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Related articles

I placed the song "There Was an Old Lady Who Swallowed a Fly" on to related articles. This was removed. I contest it. The story of "swallow a fly" is related as in the image of Woozle effect, the woozle gets larger on every complete circulation of following the trail. As in the walking in the past ( or eating) produces an Exponential growth outcome product.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 05:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

"Slavish worship"

@Andy Dingley: Yes, the implications are different. Putting an emphatic statement like that in quotation marks comes off as slightly derisive (e.g. Elmer Fudd swore to catch Bugs Bunny vs. Elmer Fudd swore to "get that wascally wabbit"), which I'm not sure was intended. Daß Wölf 18:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Why are you so sure that wasn't what was intended, given that this is precisely what they wrote? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me that the text referenced was written tongue-in-cheek. Daß Wölf 23:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

black-and-white photograph

The "We can do it!" poster caption reads, "The black-and-white photograph has been widely reported as inspiring the wartime poster, with no authority." Is the original black-and-white photo available on the Commons? Would it be fitting to display it alongside the poster? = paul2520 (talk) 01:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Any relevance?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furphy T 85.166.160.249 (talk) 05:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Winnie-the-Pooh 51.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

See also

I am not quite sure what the guidelines are for the see also section but it seems that this article has a very long see also section is that correct? Should it be cut and if so by how much? HelpCasperking (talk) 19:56, 24 December 2023 (UTC)