Talk:Streetlight effect

Notability

I love this example, and in fact cited it in a book I'm writing... but it is not clear if this is "notable". I hope it is... I added the notability template because I want to know/establish whether it is, because it's so fantastic :)

NittyG (talk) 22:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is notable on two accounts. First, it is an important bias for scientists and others to be aware of. And unless there is a better or more commonly used term for this bias, then it is inherently notable due to the value of the idea. But beyond that, now there has been two citations added to the history of the concept, which makes it more notable than being something found in a single magazine article. I have been bold, and removed the notability notice. --Jacob J. Walker (talk) 03:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, found this page when looking to explain exactly that sort of bias - as seen in "dark matter" papers. Useful as reference for that purpose. --pbannister (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nasreddin

I removed the Nasreddin version of the story as it appears to be purely duplicative. (It's also unreferenced but that is not the major problem.) NuclearWinner (talk) 21:05, 31 May 2015 (UTC) 173.164.62.141 (talk) 03:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly difficult to tell if the Nasreddin information is original sources or not. Sort of like Aesop's Fables - difficult to tell what was made up later and what was from the source.

This book has a story that fits...The Exploits of the Incomparable Mulla Nasrudin By Idries Shah page 9 https://books.google.com/books?id=czZufrUnl0wC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Mulla+(Hodja,+Hoca)+Nasrudin+(Nasreddin,+Nasruddin)+Folktales&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjNu4a0-KfdAhUs1oMKHYQ3CAsQ6AEIQDAE#v=onepage&q=keys&f=false

But looking through Google Books, there isn't really anything from 1950 and before that talks about this story. It seems like the story is just being passed down through the last 30+ years without an original source. 173.164.62.141 (talk) 03:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Drunkard's search

I have proposed that we merge Drunkard's Search into this. It's clearly the same concept, and "streetlight effect" seems to be the more popular modern way to refer to this. -- William Pietri (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't trust the Nasreddin story. I don't see an attribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.14.14 (talk) 06:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree that the two articles should be merged. The reliability (or lack thereof) of the Nasreddin story is an unrelated issue. My only question would be which article should be merged into which. The term "drunkard's search" has been around since at least 1964 (Kaplan, The Conduct of Inquiry). I tend to think that "streetlight effect" is a more common way to describe the phenomenon, but I have no evidence for that. Peter Chastain (talk) 12:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the two should be merged. I came to this by typing in "Drunk and Lamp Post" which actually is a different parable about what people use them for (illumination or support). I don't think many people (US English) have "drunkard" as part of their vocabulary, but I think its meaning is clear enough for that not to be a very significant issue. I searched both terms on both Google and Bing and got double the hits for "Streetlight Effect" compared to "Drunkard's Search", as you'd expect. So, we need to redirect from Drunkard's Search to here, and add the slightly different story of the Drunkard to this, as well as the references from that article. I don't know how to create a redirect, any volunteers?Abitslow (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus seems to be had and sufficient time had passed. I have now merged Drunkard's search into this page. There wasn't much worth preserving that wasn't just a different phrasing of the same thing, but I did preserve as much as possible. I moved DS here instead of vice versa because, (A) as Peter Chastain and William Pietri agreed, SE seems more common, (B) the "effect" seems to be the more relevant than the name of the search (a clarification I have made in the article), and (C) this article was simply better set up to take on the other. — Harry (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alabama State Bar Source

This is an interesting source, but it's hundreds of pages long. Any chance whoever included it can cite to a page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.74.140.125 (talk) 14:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through the revision history of the article and found this edit by Dridgray. From looking at this editor's User contributions, I can see s/he has not edited since 16 December 2016. If you want to, you can leave a message on his/her talk page so that if s/he ever returns to editing, s/he will see it. Be sure to include a link to this article. – Corinne (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC) P.S. Be sure to sign your own comments/posts with four tildes: ~~~~ – Corinne (talk) 15:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

173.164.62.141 (talk) 03:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Matacornea" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Matacornea and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 23#Matacornea until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Opencooper (talk) 23:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]