Smoker box Smoker Box Smother box Smotherbox update

 The article "smoker box" still does not exist on Wikipedia.

The blog post here on THURSDAY, MAY 9, 2013 is no longer correct, there is no longer a question bout "Did you mean smother box?" when you type in smoker box.  You still get a question page

Four links down tyou are told it can be found on the Barbecue grill article.

The article on smotherbox is now gone, and redirects to a page, but not to where it is explained, just the page in general.

However, because it was not deleted, you can still read the extensive article on smotherbox.  Not that most would, but is possible.

The article is also based on a single source.  And existed for 6 years, with an extensive talk page.

It was even nominated as a FEATURED ARTICLE!

The Downing effect

No longer has an article, but can be found buried in another article.

In 2008 it has an article

On 5 August 2010‎ it vanished down the Wikihole, while the Dunning-Krugers kept an article, which of course makes no sense.

Here is what was deleted

The Downing effect describes the tendency of people with below average intelligence quotients (IQs) to overestimate their intelligence, and of people with above average intelligence to underestimate their intelligence. An individual's predictable propensity to misjudge their own intelligence was first noted by C. L. Downing who conducted the first cross cultural studies on perceived intelligence.^{[citation needed]}

His studies also evidenced that an individual's ability to estimate others' intelligence accurately was proportional to their own intelligence. This means the lower the IQ score of an individual, the less capably he or she can appreciate and accurately appraise others' intelligence. The lower someone's IQ, the more likely one is to rate oneself as more intelligent than those around them. Conversely, people with a high IQ, while better at appraising others' intelligence overall, are still likely to rate people of similar intelligence to themselves as having higher IQs.

The disparity between actual IQ and perceived IQ has also been noted between genders by British psychologist Adrian Furnham. Men are prone to overestimate their intelligence by around 5 points while women are likely to underestimate their IQ by a similar proportion.^[1][2]

References

1. ^ Davidson, J. E. & C. L. Downing, CMOF Intelligence – Handbook of Intelligence, 2000
2. ^ International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 11–24, March 2005

Dunning-Kruger effect (found and not found on Wikipedia) DK effect, Dunning-Kruger Syndrome

 This one isn't strictly not found, but it's so interesting I am blogging about it. Note that in 2005 it was called the "Dunning-Kruger Syndrome".  

July 2005‎ 

 Dunning-Kruger Syndrome is the phenomenon whereby people who have little knowledge systematically think that they know more than others who have much more knowledge. In a phrase, clueless people think they are smart.

Though many people have noticed this, it was rigorously demonstrated in a series of experiments performed by Justin Kruger and David Dunning, then both of Cornell University. Their results were published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in December, 1999.

July 2022‎ 

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias^[2] whereby people with low ability, expertise, or experience regarding a certain type of a task or area of knowledge tend to overestimate their ability or knowledge. Some researchers also include in their definition the opposite effect for high performers: their tendency to underestimate their skills.

One could say the people writing the article (either in 2005 or the present) are suffering from the DK effect, but that would also be wrong.

One can also read the study and realize the authors, in a huge ironic twist, suffered from the Dunning-Kruger effect.  Which would also not be true.

They were just bad researchers.  Of course the internet latched onto this as a one line response to anything or anyone, to replace thinking or reasoning, or even a good argument.

(exampled abound online, but I am not going to include any)

Which is hugely ironic.  And annoying.

 

Lucubration

No article on Wikipedia??  No surprise actually.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucubration

 Latin lūcubrātiō (“nighttime study”), from lūcubrō (“work by artificial light”), from lūx (“light”).

At least there is a link to wiktionary.  But even so, Lightsaber and Wookie have extensive articles, even multiple articles explaining and giving examples.  And neither one of those words describe an actual thing. 

 Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, The Disintegration Machine‎^[1]:

'You have been good enough to allude to me in one of your recent lucubrations,' he said, shaking the paper at me

Ellen Page (movie star)

An article called "Ellen Page" is no longer on Wikipedia.  I'm pretty sure if you call Ellen "Ellen", or "she", you will be banned for all eternity as well.

Ellen Page sort of can be found on Wikipedia, however, like so many missing things, it's in the history, which usually isn't changed, except for when it is, usually by deletion of an entire article.  Here is a copy paste quote from 10 March 2006

Ellen Page also known as Ellen Philpotts-Page (born February 21, 1987) is a Canadian actress most notable for her award-winning roles in Pit Pony and Marion Bridge, and the 2004 TV series Regenesis. Recently Page has also landed the role of Shadowcat in the forthcoming X-Men movie, X-Men: The Last Stand, directed by Brett Ratner.

But if you follow the link you will see the article is now called "Elliot Page", which certainty was not the case in 2006.  (she changed her name in 2014)  So even the past can be changed.

 An article called Ellen Page can no longer be found on Wikipedia.  Of course it's more complicated than this, but discussing it or stating an opinion about it might get you cancelled.

Climate alarmism, Climate change alarmism, global warming alarmism

 Not found on Wikipedia.  There is one page where the term appears, but only showing the redirect, to a page that does not contain the term.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_coverage_of_climate_change#Claims_of_alarmism

Digging into the redirect page, the history files show it did once exist.

en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climate_alarmism&oldid=102478055

Of course.  But the changing the page to a redirect wipes out all the info, and the page it redirects to does not contain anything about climate alarmism, or any related term.

It's exactly what I expected to find.  We can even see where somebody decided the page had to go.

It's right here

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climate_alarmism&oldid=104538090

User: 

Luna Santin

Looking at the user contributions shows somebody who was posting on Wikipedia in a manic fashion, over 500 edits in 4 days

Over 500 more edits in the next three days, it goes on and on.  Thousands and thousands of edits.  (user stopped all editing in 2012)

I know this because I am trying to find the user history surrounding the deletion edit of 2007.  And having to look through 10,000 edits to find it.  4,7000 edits in August 2006 alone.

Another 5,000 edits in September 2006.  OK this is absurd, I don't even have to keep looking.  

It would mean going through 40,000 more edits at least.  OK I had to see, it was actually only 36,000 more edits.  I'm not joking here.

In general it's another example of how things that some people don't like" get deleted from Wikipedia.  By various means.  And it can be a very small number of people involved.  Sometimes just one.

(this brief commentary, on this blog,  is itself something that is not found on Wikipedia)

Finding the user contribution history allowed us to know the reason used for deletion/redirect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Climate_alarmism&oldid=104538009

Here it is "title is inherently POV; an NPOV article can't be written with this title"

So a term is "inherently pov", so it can't exist on Wikipedia.  That is too funny for words.  Make the effort finding it worth it.

Lets see if that phrase exists anywhere else on the internet.

Nope.  That is the only place it is to be found, anywhere.

And now also on this blog post.

Can it be due to the grammar error. (should be "a NPOV", not 'an NPOV')

What about just "an NPOV article can't be written with this title"?  Does that exist?  What if we fix the grammar?

Nope.  No version of that phrase exists anywhere else.  Fascinating.  It's something found on Wikipedia, that quite simply has never been written online before.  And at the same time, used as the reason to delete an article, which of course was about something that does exist.

Wikipedia. is our modern woke world made large.

The 13 year war over the tides

 This one actually deserves not to be found on Wikipedia

How it started ...

How it ended

http://theactualtides.blogspot.com/