Talk:The Honest Truth about Dishonesty

fewer opportunities to cheat= no difference?

The article states that Ariely found that " There is no effect on the level of dishonesty from:...The probability of getting caught." I think this is not what the book says- the following statement a few lines later says that "Supervision. The author says that supervision makes cheating less possible, so there is no dishonesty." This appears contradictory, perhaps it needs to be clearer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.50.255.1 (talk) 23:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Correction to at least one claim in article should be identified as false and likely fraudulent

To the "Sign to confirm honesty" claim, it is wrong (and very misleading to all Wikipedia readers) to leave that now-famously-known-to-be-fraudulent claim [see sources below] to go completely unchallenged in the article! What does it take to be able to correct this page without the correction being immediately undone by another editor? As I noted in my undone edit: This particular finding, at least, has failed in many replication attempts and has been credibly found to be based on fraudulent data, the irony of which has somehow escaped most of the commentary on this book here and on other platforms. The following highly credible sources are just the tip of the iceberg. Please at least check the evidence before undoing my edit. [1]https://datacolada.org/98 [2]https://freakonomics.com/podcast-tag/academic-fraud/ [3]https://openmkt.org/blog/2023/everyone-involved-in-dan-arielys-fake-data-scandal-now-has-an-alibi-except-for-ariely-himself/#:~:text=In%20the%20fall%20of%202021,that%20was%20obviously%20tampered%20with. There are MANY more published academic and popular sources confirming this case of academic dishonesty. Without the correction, Wikipedia is only contributing to the misinformation and spreading, thus exacerbating, the original academic dishonesty. Perkindd (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

You need reliable sources, which blogs generally aren't, and sources which directly address this book. Otherwise you are engaging in original research and synthesis. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 00:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a whole section on Dan Ariely's article about the paper being retracted (Manipulated data in an experiment about dishonesty) and none of the references, or even the ones you offer, appear to mention this book. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Datacolada.org is not a typical blog; it is the leading authority on social data mining and quantitative academic dishonesty. The retraction of the primary source should be enough to question Ariely repeating the false claim from that retracted source in his book. But I'm satisfied that the claim and others were deleted from this article in the latest version. Perkindd (talk) 04:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)