Talk:Lazy user model
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 25 October 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
"Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments.
Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked. To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented."
This article appears to violate WP:NOR and should be deleted unless cites for reliable sources can be added to it. A home page is not enough. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The paper that puts forth this theory has only been cited twice according to Scholarometer. Therefore, wouldn't meet notability guidelines.Linclark (talk) 20:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Considerations - user perception
editIt might be useful for the reader to understand that there is a distinction between actions that the user expects to require more effort and those actions that actually do. There are related psychological studies that might be referenced, for example, "Perceived difficulty in the theory of planned behaviour: Perceived behavioural control or affective attitude?", which explores factors such as affective attitude and confidence. full text It seems to me that the article is crying out for references to psychology and cognitive theory, but perhaps it depends on the extent to which certain ideas can be shown to have directly influenced the development of the model itself?
Obviously, there are already theory-related references in the "See Also" section, but I was imagining that some of that associated information could be expanded into the article itself, to show how those topics relate, at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.47.59 (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)