This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
After I've repeatedly come across the hindsight bias, I felt it might be relevant in the context of the present Wikipedia article.
According to the hindsight bias, people overestimate in retrospect the likelihood, foreseeability and/or inevitability of an event, and obviously a study has even found it in Wikipedia articles on catastrophes/ accidents:
doi:10.1007/s00426-017-0865-7
That's why I was wondering whether hindsight bias might have entered into this article as well (i.e., whether the disaster is presented as more predictable and inevitable than it actually was from the foresight perspective, i.e., without outcome knowledge.
According to researchers, the hindsight bias can be countered by deliberately taking information into account that would have argued against the outcome – obviously, the hindsight bias results from a retrospective one-sided focus on information that is consistent with the event while ignoring or not taking seriously information that is inconsistent with it (i.e., would have argued for another outcome). So maybe it would be good to check again and make sure that event-inconsistent information was not overlooked?--2A02:810D:1300:38E5:A195:7F94:49ED:A9DC (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
