Talk:Information cascade

Information cascade was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 9, 2012	Good article nominee	Not listed
April 27, 2012	Good article nominee	Not listed

Current status: Former good article nominee

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Economics C‑class Low‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics 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.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics 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.

numbers in the example

The numbers in the example do not have an obvious reason; why are people right 2/3 of the time? why will everyone get eaten at least 1 out of 10 times?

Yeah, that's the nature of examples. You take any numbers you like and demonstrate your point using those. In my opinion, the factidate template can savely be removed. Drahflow 19:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This person attempted to quote the example at http://www.info-cascades.info/ and failed. 68.255.166.119 21:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've surgically removed the attempt to quote the example to improve readability. If the original reference is still valuable, I hope someone else can quote or reference it more cleanly. 16:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.125.144.16 (talk)

People are rational? Really? Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence; I do not see any evidence for this claim, extraordinary or otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.116.45.160 (talk) 05:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article Review

This article is somewhat turstworthy, somewhat biased, a little complete, a little well-written,and somewhat accurate. This article is quite turstworthy, quite biased, a little complete, a little well-written,and somewhat accurate. I have two comments on this article. First, I'm a bit confused by the hybrid seed corn example, as this is one of the prototypical examples of Innovation diffusion. Perhaps this should be listed in the "See also section". Second, the term information cascade has been applied recently in other settings. Perhaps a noting of this might improve the clarity of the article. Kjoseph17 (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before nominating again...

Please fully source the article at the VERY least. --LauraHale (talk) 08:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some more citations would help, but this article has come a long way in a short time. Keep up the good work! TroyandAbedintheMorning (talk) 02:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC) Template:WAP assignment[reply]

disagreement with user:LauraHale

user:LauraHale deleted a large fraction of new material added to this article without justification. I have not gone over every detail of her reverts, but I can see that she threw out some good material, making the material that remained incomprehensible. The "Qualitative Example" section is a case in point. The previous version had a illustration of an information cascade taken from a peer-reviewed and highly cited article on the topic; the original article is referenced. The illustration should help a general reader understand what an information cascade is and how its existence is demonstrated in experimental, economics research. However user:LauraHale eviscerated this section, leaving only a single sentence that doesn't make sense in isolation. Her only comments was to cite WP:TNT.

I would revert user:LauraHale's reverts, but I'm not sure what this would do to the contributions editors made afterwards. So I've done nothing and hope more experienced Wikipedians will know what to do. Robertekraut (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I too wish I understood why it was thrown out, not re-edited - did she have a fundamental problem with the material or simply kill it because it was poorly written? Maybe it's a good thing it looked awkward, otherwise I wouldn't have checked the revision history. I'm glad she didn't toss the citation completely, too - that might be a sign that she wanted another user to take a crack at paraphrasing the experiment. It could use a rewrite, but I haven't read the cited article. I might try to get my hands on it.(Elustran (talk) 06:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

References

Since the website where most of the information was from is offline or being squatted, I suggest changing the references to their scholarly publications rather than to a google cache.--Melt core (talk) 05:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]