![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Farrell101.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 05:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
If outcome bias was extrapolated to ethics (as with other cognitive biases, such as omission bias), would this not seriously hurt the case for a utilitarian system of morality? ~ Baker —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.0.246.3 ( talk) 13:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC).
The historian's fallacy seems very similar. -- Mrwojo 06:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted most of the changes in this series of edits by @ LibertarianLiechtenstein, for multiple reasons:
site:jssm.org "outcome bias"
and site:jssm.org "outcome effect"
return nothing), and the paper isn't in
JSSM's archives assuming the year/volume and pages are correct. That reference
has already been removed by another editor."Another study found that professional basketball coaches are 'more likely to revise their strategy after a loss than a win... even when a loss was expected and even when failure is due to factors beyond the team's control.'"to
"This is an example of how the outcome bias can cloud people's judgment and cause them to focus on the final result rather than the actual process and performance of the player.". In my opinion, the latter conveys no new information and is just filler.
site:acpjournals.org "outcome bias"
and site:acpjournals.org "outcome effect"
return only irrelevant results. The paper also isn't in
the journal's archives. For the National Bureau of Economic Research reference, its URL is dead and weirdly formatted. The "w7721" part probably refers to a working paper, but the
actual NBER paper of that number is irrelevant and has a different URL scheme. (There is a w7732 that is relevant, but it doesn't support the claims of the added paragraphs.) The "nber.org/digest/apr01/..." format is actually used for digest articles published in April 2001, but none of the articles in that digest are relevant.I am not certain that these changes are definitely plagiarism or fabrications, unintentional or not. LibertarianLiechtenstein's response would be helpful, since they were the editor who made these changes. If there's something I've overlooked, please tell me. Coolclawcat ( talk) 07:53, 20 June 2023 (UTC)