Talk:Pacific Northwest tree octopus

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pacific Northwest tree octopus article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Oregon C‑class Low‑importance

	Oregon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

Skepticism C‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Washington C‑class Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (assessed as Low-importance).

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There are two whitespace lines above the "Results" section divider. Could you remove one of them? 72.77.42.118 (talk) 16:42, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done ... discospinster _talk 19:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is fake!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.146.228 (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It literally calls it a hoax within the first sentence. Ollieisanerd (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please change Only 6 out of the 53 school children (11%) viewed the website as unreliable.[9] Each of these 6 school children had just participated in a lesson that used this website to teach them to be suspicious of information online. to 7 out of the 53 school children (13%) viewed the website as unreliable.[9] Each of these 6 school children had just participated in a lesson that used this website to teach them to be suspicious of information online. Due to Recent information — Preceding unsigned comment added by HelloCrister (talk • contribs) 05:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2022

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

the tree octopus has only seven arms. 132.235.84.57 (talk) 01:21, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

well, in my opinion it has 8. 132.235.84.57 (talk) 01:23, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: It's a fictional creature so it has 0 arms. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 01:35, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2022

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

It was an internet hoax 50.219.66.58 (talk) 13:17, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 13:36, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It straight up says it was an internet hoax in the first sentence. Ollieisanerd (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2023

I propose the inclusion of a study by Unger and Rollins published in 2021. This study is particularly noteworthy because the authors drew from a sample of college students, as opposed to past studies that have primarily focused on younger demographics. More information about the study and a link to the full pdf article can be found here https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1306175.

Proposed addition to “Design” under “Internet literary studies”:

Unger and Rollins (2021) extended research to the collegiate level by investigating how 90 first-year college students enrolled in an introductory organismal biology course at a small private university in the US would navigate and respond to a two-part online activity centered around the fictitious species. In Part 1, students were directed to a seemingly credible website about the Pacific Northwest tree octopus and then asked three questions about the species (e.g., if it is real). For Part 2, students were shown a clearly satirical video debunking the species and then posed more detailed questions about its authenticity, believing sources, and the importance of critical thinking in science.

Proposed addition to “Results” under “Internet literary studies”:

In the 2021 study, the authors found that, of the 90 complete responses, 90% of students believed the species was real in Part 1, while only 10% doubted its existence. In Part 2, after viewing the satirical video, 92.2% concluded it was a fake species, but 7.8% still believed it to be real. The students’ responses to the various questions collected indicated that few conducted further research on the species, even if they were suspicious about the species’ existence. Their responses also suggested they hadn't given the activity much thought. However, the activity was designed to be short, and the students were not asked to conduct further research. Still, the revelation for many that the species was fictitious only came after watching the satirical video. The authors suggested that students might not invest adequate effort in critically evaluating short assignments or might take instructional content at face value, reflecting a lack in independent thinking. Encouragingly, though, students overwhelmingly appreciated the activity. To enhance scientific literacy and critical thinking, the authors recommended incorporating such inquiry activities in introductory biology courses, complemented by group discussions. They also advocated for instructors to encourage students to embrace the Sagan standard of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" when presenting or talking about the activity.

Sagan reference: https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=GlXPqexwO28C&oi=fnd&pg=PR4&dq=Broca%27s+Brain:+Reflections+on+the+Romance+of+Science&ots=65wkWdKYo6&sig=9rDoWwtqPzPaLHVxBDz0oZAoUQ4&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Broca's%20Brain%3A%20Reflections%20on%20the%20Romance%20of%20Science&f=false

More information on the Sagan standard can be found here Sagan standard

I appreciate your consideration.

24.51.239.147 (talk) 23:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]