Talk:Ben Franklin effect

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Ben Franklin effect was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (September 3, 2017). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ben Franklin effect 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

Presidet

He was born januar 17th 1706 in boston masschusetts he was our 6th presidet. he did not graduate.At the age of 17 he ran away to philly.he return to filly 1726. A library wass created by benjamin franklin in 1731

Nice, but what's a Presidet? lol 204.52.215.107 16:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Franklin was 6th President of the Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania. He was never a US president. -Sensemaker

I call BS

This sounds like bullsh*t. It seems more likely that whoever thought this mistaked a different effect for this, such as the person already liking you and wanting to impress you. Can we get at least a citation about who named the term as such and who supported it? 80.98.218.96 (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

vs Mandela

The Nelson Mandela quote is not the same. It's the concept that working with someone means that you put aside your differences. Franklin's idea is that if you get someone to do something for you, they'll be more likely to do more favours for you - not the same as mutually working together at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.203.60.152 (talk) 05:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ben Franklin effect. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150118172814/http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/autobiography/page48.htm to http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/autobiography/page48.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review preliminary

I find myself perplexed by this article since the psychological studies cited do not mention Ben Franklin; but are straightforward tests of an effect consistent with the theory of cognitive dissonance. The other sources are blogs which reference the same studies. The quotes from Franklin describe the effect, but where is the reliable source that makes the connection between the name and the modern research? If there is no such source, is "seeing the similarity" original research? If it is OR by the bloggers, is that OK?

I would also remove the content from the dog trainer as unworthy of inclusion in a psychology article.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ben Franklin effect/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Stedil (talk · contribs) 03:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I will be reviewing the following article. Stedil (talk) 03:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Large sections of the text are just direct quotations from the sources, rather than a summary "in your own words." see WP:YTCOPYRIGHT. Some unclear language in places, especially the lead.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead section doesn't summarize the rest of the article. Facts and information appear in the lead which are not discussed in the rest of the article. Likewise, sections in the rest of the article are not mentioned at all in the lead. Large-scale revision needed.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	There is a list of references in the article. All sources are cited adequately enough so that they can be verified.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	This is the biggest problem with the article. As a scientific article, it is particularly important that all sources are reliable and verifiable. This article contains multiple sources from blogs, which are not reliable. See, WP:BLOGS. The primary source of information in an article such as this should be published, academic research on the subject. Currently, this article contains a grand total of TWO sources that fit this description (the 1969 and 1971 study). The 1971 study, by the way, is not directly sourced (in-line) where it is mentioned. In addition to expanding the number of academic research cited, it also needs to provide more recent research, as psychological theory changes over time. Other reliable sources that may be used are published books/textbooks which themselves properly cite academic research. This paper includes only TWO examples of sources of this kind (The 1979 textbook and the 2011 book). While the 2011 book does discuss cognitive dissonance, it doesn't directly reference the "Benjamin Franklin Effect" in the section cited or show how the two are connected, as claimed in the preceding sentence. All other sources in this article are not reliable and should be replaced. News organizations such as Forbes should be treated with caution as sources for an article like this, since they are not academic and may misrepresent the sources they refer to. For more guidance on sourcing information, I would read Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology/How to write a psychology article.
	2c. it contains no original research.	All info is cited in the article.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	While there aren't any copyright violations, see above about extensive use of quotes.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	There are many aspects of this topic which aren't covered in the article. For example, I'm still unsure about the direct connection between Ben Franklin and the psychological theory and whether researchers themselves actually refer to it by this name. Related to lack of sources, the information presented only discusses to academic studies, both several decades ago. What recent research has been done on this topic? The connection between the Ben Franklin Effect and cognitive dissonance is also unclear from the article and should be expanded as appropriate from available sources. As mentioned earlier, direct quotations from sources should be replaced with summaries of their content.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The entire article is about the Ben Franklin Effect, as it should be.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Several of the sources used (blog posts and Forbes article) contain bias, which carries over into the article itself through direct quotations. The "Uses" section in particular relies on the opinion of the creators of the articles/blog posts.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit wars present in edit history.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	only image cited is public domain.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	This article is in need of a serious rewrite before it becomes GA quality, most notably by replacing blog/news sources with academic/professional sources, especially recent sources. Once sources are added, the article will need a significant overhaul to reflect the new information provided by these sources. As of now, I see no reason to change this article's status from "Start" class.