Jump to content

Talk:Automation bias

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): GrimJimTim.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2018 and 2 May 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): N hatfield.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In fiction?

[edit]

There are probably quite a number of works of fiction that issue that bias - somebody please create a section for it and list some of them. --Fixuture (talk) 09:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Automation bias/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Georgejdorner (talk · contribs) 06:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


I began this review by reading the article (of course). The problem being, I couldn't read very far before the article fell apart. The division of Automation bias into errors of omission and commission was a promising start. Then there is that succession of single sentence sections that loses me. I get the feeling that these sentences are all aspects of some point the editor(s) are trying to make, but I'm darned if I can figure what that point is supposed to be. As an offline editor, I would be red penciling a whole string of section titles because they seem like unneeded intrusions. As it is, this article is poorly enough written it becomes incomprehensible.

Sorry, but this is a gross failure of the first criteria. I wish the editor(s) the best of fortune in revamping it. Perhaps somehow sorting the various examples of bias into omissions and commissions? The subject could be intriguing. However, I believe the systemic problems are extensive enough it does not merit a hold for repair. At present I am not sure it even deserves the current Start class assessment.Georgejdorner (talk) 06:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Below are additional sources to supplement the automation complacency section. The section should integrate automation trust literature, to include factors that lead to automation complacency, such as automation reliability. In addition, the page will benefit by discussing differences between automation complacency and bias, first failure effect, trust, and reliable scales that measure automation complacency and trust.

Hoff, K. A., & Bashir, M. (2015). Trust in automation: Integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust. Human Factors, 57(3), 407-434.

Wickens, C. D., Hollands, J. G., Banbury, S., & Parasuraman, R. (2015). Engineering psychology & human performance. Psychology Press.

Wickens, C. D., Clegg, B. A., Vieane, A. Z., & Sebok, A. L. (2015). Complacency and automation bias in the use of imperfect automation. Human factors, 57(5), 728-739.

N hatfield (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing 737-MAX

[edit]

I created this article in 2013 based on the predicted 737 scenario. There are now multiple sources linking the 737 debacle to automation bias. Please add them. Viriditas (talk) 00:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]