Talk:Pacific Northwest tree octopus

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2021

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)

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

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

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

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2022

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2022

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

 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)

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

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)

Endangered/Vulnerable/Least Concern boxes?

The Wikipedia on most individual species usually contains a box at upper right telling us whether the species falls into categories such as Extinct, Critically Endangered, Threatened, Of Concern, Least Vulnerable. That's not a verbatim list. It's categories LIKE that. This status-designation is missing from this Wikipedia article on this species. That's not the norm.2600:1700:6759:B000:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 01:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson

That could possibly be due to the fact that the creature does not exist. ... discospinster _talk 03:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Well then, that would be "extinct" on the line of circles that has the things like "Vulnerable", "Critical", "Threatened", "Least Concern", isn't it? Also there's no cladistics box listing Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, and all that.2600:1700:6759:B000:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 06:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson

I think you're a little bit confused about the real purpose of such article accompaniments. AnonMoos (talk) 11:13, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Provide a reliable third-party assessment of the status of the Pacific Northwest tree octopus. We'll wait. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 03:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Please ask "discospinster" above. discospinster's opinion is "extinct" and if that's from a good source it should suffice.2600:1700:6759:B000:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 04:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson

Don't put words in other editors' mouths. user:discospinster did not say it should be listed as "extinct". She wrote "the creature does not exist". An animal has to have existed before it can become extinct. Imaginary or hoax animals don't exist, but they are not extinct. Meters (talk) 04:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2024

Jimmyjimjames (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello i would like to edit it and add some fact about it and why it was created. Also you have missed some points I would like to add. I don't want to change the whole thing just some stuff is the top and the description. Thank you and hopefully I will hear from you soon.

 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) 21:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2024

P6F9 (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

hi my name is what my names is who

 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. Please do not make joke edit requests. Shadow311 (talk) 14:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)