Talk:Flipism
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
this is a neologism of sorts
[edit]while carl barks did coin the phrase flipism, its not been used by others as far as i can tell. thus using it to title an article on this subject is using it as a neologism, and may be original research. not tagging it yet, but i will. i also removed references that were invalid. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- The answer to its being a neologism or not is: "So what?"
- Putting aside the question of whether this was a neologism (which the article makes no claim for, by the way), you eliminated a central piece of research, namely Kahler, Mark. Rationality in International Relations International Organization, Vol. 52, No. 4, International Organization at Fifty: Exploration and Contestation in the Study of World Politics (Autumn, 1998), pp. 919-941 © 1998 MIT Press. and then opine that the whole article has become "orginal research." After gutting the article from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, your gratuitous and unwarranted attack is frankly a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you remove the references (you've heard of MIT, I assume; how about Henry Kissinger who is mentioned in the article?), then anything will look like "original research." But saying it -- ipse dixit -- doesn't make it so.
- Please reconsider your position. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 21:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Stan
- my apologies for not getting back sooner, i had a connection which deleted my response. and i also apologize for aggressive editing. i could have posted my queries here first, for discussion. but my concerns remain, and ill try to explain: "flipism" is only used, as far as i can tell, in the carl barks comic. while there is certainly a body of research into the idea of decision making by use of a randomizing device, and that duality is probably the most referenced range of choices (the question of choosing between n>2 choices randomly is a further iteration of the idea), i dont see any reference to the term flipism in the literature that is referenced here (aside from an acknowledgement in one article of the barks comic, which doesnt use the term outside of the comic reference). i do note that the novel series uses this idea (but not by name), and i would utterly agree that an article on the idea of using randomness as a basis for decision making is valid. what i dont agree with is calling this idea "flipism". not because its an invalid term (personally i find it awkward sounding), but because no one uses it currently. and THATS the original research that i see. pulling together a series of notable references on the idea of randomness as a method of making decisions, then calling it by a word from a comic book (and i am aware that carl barks is not just any comic book writer/artist, and i am a comic fan myself), is to my thinking straining towards original research. I am trying to think of a better name, but nothing is coming to me yet. I also didn't think that a link to a JSTOR article where you only get the abstract, where the abstract doesnt indicate the relevance to this article very clearly (and doesnt mention the word flipism in the abstract), was a good choice. regarding whether this word is a neologism, i refer you to Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. "so what?" is not a valid argument in this case. if its a new word coined by barks which has begun to get use when referring to this idea, then its a neologism which has entered the vocabulary, deserving an article depending on its level of notability. if its being used in this article to refer to a wider range of writings which talk about the ideas behind flipism but which don't directly use the phrase, then its a neologism used to create an article, which is not allowed. all of this is made gray (hm, gray areas in an article on black and white decision making processes...) by the article that is cited which begins by talking about the comic. so while i don't have a strong desire to revert or change anything, i do want to see this article improved with a new title and some restructuring, and i want to make clear that this was not intended as an unwarranted attack, or an attempt to create a self fulfilling prophecy. I may have been hasty, but my motives stem from confusion about what this article is, and whether other people may also be confused. i would appreciate an apology for what appears to be personal attacks (yes, i have heard of MIT and henry kissinger, and that sounds very condescending), though i understand the source of your anger. again, my apologies for not taking my concerns to the talk page first.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- I apologize. I have become somewhat prideful of this improved article, which I think illustrates a number of useful concepts. All I want is for it to be better, and ripping out pertinent sources (whether it has the words "Flipism" or "Flippist" -- Barks spelled them that way, and they are probably a Neologism, per an uncited sources that I found on the web -- won't help the article. To dismiss this as "original research" (an epithet and a violation of one of the commandments in Wikiland) did not get us off to a good start,and set off my defensive and untoward response. My main point is that I do not want to see this article trashed, but only improved. Happy editing. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Stan
- apology accepted. if i can improve the article i will do so. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- I apologize. I have become somewhat prideful of this improved article, which I think illustrates a number of useful concepts. All I want is for it to be better, and ripping out pertinent sources (whether it has the words "Flipism" or "Flippist" -- Barks spelled them that way, and they are probably a Neologism, per an uncited sources that I found on the web -- won't help the article. To dismiss this as "original research" (an epithet and a violation of one of the commandments in Wikiland) did not get us off to a good start,and set off my defensive and untoward response. My main point is that I do not want to see this article trashed, but only improved. Happy editing. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Stan
- my apologies for not getting back sooner, i had a connection which deleted my response. and i also apologize for aggressive editing. i could have posted my queries here first, for discussion. but my concerns remain, and ill try to explain: "flipism" is only used, as far as i can tell, in the carl barks comic. while there is certainly a body of research into the idea of decision making by use of a randomizing device, and that duality is probably the most referenced range of choices (the question of choosing between n>2 choices randomly is a further iteration of the idea), i dont see any reference to the term flipism in the literature that is referenced here (aside from an acknowledgement in one article of the barks comic, which doesnt use the term outside of the comic reference). i do note that the novel series uses this idea (but not by name), and i would utterly agree that an article on the idea of using randomness as a basis for decision making is valid. what i dont agree with is calling this idea "flipism". not because its an invalid term (personally i find it awkward sounding), but because no one uses it currently. and THATS the original research that i see. pulling together a series of notable references on the idea of randomness as a method of making decisions, then calling it by a word from a comic book (and i am aware that carl barks is not just any comic book writer/artist, and i am a comic fan myself), is to my thinking straining towards original research. I am trying to think of a better name, but nothing is coming to me yet. I also didn't think that a link to a JSTOR article where you only get the abstract, where the abstract doesnt indicate the relevance to this article very clearly (and doesnt mention the word flipism in the abstract), was a good choice. regarding whether this word is a neologism, i refer you to Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. "so what?" is not a valid argument in this case. if its a new word coined by barks which has begun to get use when referring to this idea, then its a neologism which has entered the vocabulary, deserving an article depending on its level of notability. if its being used in this article to refer to a wider range of writings which talk about the ideas behind flipism but which don't directly use the phrase, then its a neologism used to create an article, which is not allowed. all of this is made gray (hm, gray areas in an article on black and white decision making processes...) by the article that is cited which begins by talking about the comic. so while i don't have a strong desire to revert or change anything, i do want to see this article improved with a new title and some restructuring, and i want to make clear that this was not intended as an unwarranted attack, or an attempt to create a self fulfilling prophecy. I may have been hasty, but my motives stem from confusion about what this article is, and whether other people may also be confused. i would appreciate an apology for what appears to be personal attacks (yes, i have heard of MIT and henry kissinger, and that sounds very condescending), though i understand the source of your anger. again, my apologies for not taking my concerns to the talk page first.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I hope you can. We need all the informed help we can get. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Stan
robert coover novel
[edit]check the listing for Robert Coovers novel universal baseball association, which features a version of baseball where every decision is made with roll of dice. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Futurama episode
[edit]The professor in one Futurama episode created a gateway to another dimension that differed by all past coin flips had the reverse outcome. It might be interesting to include this in the popular culture section, with a proper reference, of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.149.40.215 (talk) 02:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
in his book confessions of a raving nut... paul flips a coin to make a major decision about how to perceive the universe, and it lands on its edge. photo included. dont trust him, though...Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
magic 8-ball?
[edit]why is this a see also? It would be equally appropriate to say see also: coin, or see also: rock that's dry on one side and has spit on the other side, or see also: odds or evens. How about see also: eenie meenie minie moe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romaniantruths (talk • contribs) 20:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Flippism shows suprising efficiency?
[edit]Any Two-option random decision making construct will be right half the time. Does this system show a greayer than 50/50 performance in the story? In order to be "suprising efficiency" it would have to be substantially better. so just how efficient is it?Romaniantruths (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's a comic book story, not a mathematics treatise. ... - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Nash equilibrium?
[edit]Why is "Nash Equilibrium" in the See Also Section? This does not seem to relate to Flipism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobyr2 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Original research.
[edit]The last two paragraphs of the "In decision making" section have no citations.STUART (talk) 05:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Source for alternate name
[edit]I've never liked the name given for this article and philosophy. ive tried to think of others, but of course if i think of it its likely to be creative interpretation. Here, however, is a source for a possible alternate name: Joan Didion, in her essay collection The White Album, on page 18, writes about the "chance" sequence of events which brought Linda Kasabian eventually to prison for involvement in the Tate-LaBianca murders: " "Everything was to teach me something." Linda said. Linda did not believe that chance was without pattern. Linda operated on what I later recognized as dice theory, and so, during the years I am talking about, did I." This sounds like she means she let random choice lead her through those years, which in essence is what a lot of people at that time did, just "going with the flow". however, since she doesnt explicitly state that is the meaning, i am simply placing this here as another piece of the puzzle. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Other ways of making choices
[edit]I think (at least one other editor disagrees) that the vague list of "other ways of making a decision" - astrology, dice, whatever - does not belong in this article, which is about a very specific and rather odd decision-making technique, not a general discussion of how to make decisions. It belongs in Decision making but not here - as an example, you won't find similar lists in articles about game theory, negotiations, nuclear deterrence, diplomacy etc. etc. etc.
Kill it, I say - it's a distraction and inappropriate. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- David, I understand your concern. However, it is a way to make a decision. Augury seems particularly appropriate, and as a "pretended philosophy" might be analogous. This really wasn't a random list. Consult your Magic 8 ball, so to speak. We could try to sharpen this up, and suggest that there are generally better and well recognized ways to do this. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- I sharpened it up. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Dead link
[edit]reference 4 is dead, but here is another version: http://lfs.org/newsletter/029/02/Prometheus_2902.pdf Sorry, not time to convert to proper format.
Above romaniantruths suggests that the line about flippism showing "surprising efficiency" is inappropriate. From the link I agree that the article does not support that conclusion, and it could also be mis-interpreted that flipism shows surprising efficiency in the world, not just the story.Stainless316 (talk) 12:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Claim of Irrationality
[edit]Not sure on what this claim rests. Clearly if you have a simplified vision of rationality that excludes the costs of making decisions, then you could justifiably describe this as failing descriptions of rationality. However, you would be demonstrably be missing both crucial aspects of rationality and of the proposal.
Clearly if engaging in informed decision making requires costs (time of learning, etc) then just flipping a coin may indeed be very rational. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.100.114 (talk) 19:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Flipism. 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/20110719074118/http://www.rastetter-wacker.de/Barks-Flipism.htm to http://www.rastetter-wacker.de/Barks-Flipism.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- 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) 18:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
House of Cards
[edit]What more is needed for the reference in House of Cards? Frank Underwood literally mentions both Donald Duck, the name of the story Flip Decision, and the word flipism itself, in a long monologue to the viewers at the start of the episode to explain to them how come he's still President several months after the election which turned out a tie. --46.93.158.170 (talk) 12:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)