- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 04:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Since all of the text that had been added has now been removed due to copying from other sources, there is no expansion and this does not qualify for DYK.
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Schadenfreude
edit... that contrary to the prevailing belief, oxytocin decreases the adherence to fairness and increases schadenfreude?
Source1: The other side of the coin: oxytocin decreases the adherence to fairness norms
Source2: Intranasal administration of oxytocin increases envy and schadenfreude
Disclosure: Content for this article has been taken from PubMed Central from within their Open Access Subset with CC BY 4.0 Licence statement defeating all/any copyright infringement violations.
5x expanded by Topcipher (talk). Self-nominated at 13:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC).
- Comment: All of these studies are overblown in the article: oxytocin more likely has none of these effects, including Schadenfreude. The 2009 Schadenfreude study is small, it doesn't report enough details to be able to assess its validity, and it's a single study without replication. Claiming that oxytocin has the effects in this effect isn't justified on the basis of this small, poorly reported study. You can see the full text for free here. After looking at that section of this article, I agree with the conclusion by a journalist here: "In many ways, oxytocin epitomises what happens when enthusiasm, salesmanship, and optimism runs ahead of evidence and careful experimentation." This is a fairly strongly-worded claim of proof, based on inconclusive weak evidence. Hildabast (talk) 01:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Hildabast: I agree with your comment towards the 2009 study being the only one (quite literally, as I was unable to find any other study either) and my apologies in case the DYK statement came out as rather unfavorable or other than as intended i.e. to showcase the fact that such a study, that exists, has proved otherwise (in context to the existing beliefs).
Let me also profess this by saying that I've shared an alternate text instead, if that is something which provides with the rightful information; however, I am more inclined to consider the evidence provided within the comments made by another set of researchers in the same field as shown in their research here, where within the image's right top quadrant, the conclusion speaks towards their alternate findings, which do align with the 2009 study.
Since I was unable to find any published research that negates or refutes the 2009 study, specifically - would also like to point out that there have been other studies that have taken references or cited this study to prove and move forward with their original topics (which is what has been cited within this article as well - ex: Oxytocin promotes human ethnocentrism). Thanks.
P.S. Although I couldn't see the free .pdf text, I do get the sense of your message and also, I think you may've wanted to provide this slate link (instead of the one that currently exists on the comment).
TopCipher (talk) 08:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC) - ALT1 = ...
that based on a 2009 study, oxytocin decreases the adherence to fairness and increases schadenfreude?
- Sorry that I didn't check the link - here's the Google Scholar search that gets you to the free full text. The second source does not directly address the point made in the hook, has similar reporting problems, and is even smaller - only 24 male college students. Neither of these studies prove the contention in the hook that oxytocin "decreases the adherence to fairness and increases Schadenfreude" - not even for the narrow populations in which the study was done, much less for humans from other cultures or social circumstances. Hildabast (talk) 11:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, my bad! I should've amended the 'adherence to fairness' part if we're to only refer to the 2009 study relating 'Oxytocin' and 'Schadenfreude'; kindly allow me to propose a second alternate hook (as below). However, I think this does not entirely resolve the queries in our discussion. I suppose we still would need to determine - if or not to consider the 2009 study, along with the other studies that reference it in their support - to be credible/reliable enough. I still do believe that the outcome of such an inquiry would be opinion driven as most of the evidence inclines to the fact that a lot of the other published/researched studies have been done so based on positively aligning themselves to the 2009 study. Thanks. TopCipher (talk) 12:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- ALT2 = ... that a study conducted in 2009 showed that schadenfreude is modulated by oxytocin?
- This doesn't get around the core problem, which is that it is promoting something as a fact which is based on a small, weak study. If it is nonetheless regarded as interesting enough in 2017 to promote the results of an inconclusive small study from 2009, then it would need to be accurate. The study is not a study of the role of oxytocin in the ordinary course of feeling Schadenfreude. Writing about this accurately would go something like this: "A small 2009 study of spraying oxytocin in the nose found it might have increased Schadenfreude, but this finding has not been confirmed and is likely to have been due to chance".Hildabast (talk) 11:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Hildabast: I'm not quite certain how to respond to that - are you suggesting that we do not consider the 2009 study at all (i.e. to say should Wikipedia not be allowed to display the findings per this particular study?) - the reason why I ask this is so we could accordingly proceed with either requesting a second opinion or try and arrive at an appropriate DYK hook; in any case, the intent behind having shared this is simply to express that such a study exists (as I've stated before). For us to maintain a neutral point of view, I don't think it would be wise for us (as Wiki editors) to either condemn a study as small / inconclusive / inaccurate based on our opinions (instead of credible evidence) or promote it in a manner that suggests anything other than the actual findings.
I always try and avoid adjectives (such as 'small') as they come out as colouring a fact with one's own opinion and so I would not support the aforementioned quote and I apologize for sounding curt on this topic but I believe we're yet to discover a single shred of evidence that either refutes or negates the 2009 study, as you've constantly claimed. While I agree that ALT0 & ALT1 may not have been the best for a DYK nomination, I still do not see an issue with the ALT2 that I've proposed. Thanks.
TopCipher (talk) 12:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Hildabast: I'm not quite certain how to respond to that - are you suggesting that we do not consider the 2009 study at all (i.e. to say should Wikipedia not be allowed to display the findings per this particular study?) - the reason why I ask this is so we could accordingly proceed with either requesting a second opinion or try and arrive at an appropriate DYK hook; in any case, the intent behind having shared this is simply to express that such a study exists (as I've stated before). For us to maintain a neutral point of view, I don't think it would be wise for us (as Wiki editors) to either condemn a study as small / inconclusive / inaccurate based on our opinions (instead of credible evidence) or promote it in a manner that suggests anything other than the actual findings.
- @Hildabast: I agree with your comment towards the 2009 study being the only one (quite literally, as I was unable to find any other study either) and my apologies in case the DYK statement came out as rather unfavorable or other than as intended i.e. to showcase the fact that such a study, that exists, has proved otherwise (in context to the existing beliefs).
I have had a look through this and there are multiple issues. I agree with Hildabast's point above that we require good evidence to make claims about the relationship of oxytocin to this emotion. Studies of this sort are known to be quite unreliable – see the replication crisis and so we'd need WP:MEDRS level sourcing for such a claim.
- The other point is that this is on the borderline for x5 expansion. I'm inclined to be flexible about this as a lot of work has been done. But there seems to be too much padding – verbosity, digression and repetition. For example, the section about gloating rambles at length with sentences such as "The elation at winning the lottery is different from the pride in seeing a daughter graduate or the joy in watching the sunset." which seem quite unnecessary as well being contentious and requiring better sourcing. The article seems to require significant copy-editing and pruning and it might then struggle to meet the 5x condition. Andrew D. (talk) 14:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Andrew Davidson: Thank you for your council and kindly allow me to first address the second segment of your review (i.e. about copy-edit) and then I would elaborate further over the first -
- A. It is true that the prose of this article's expansion is not up to standards (so much so that it certainly fails most acceptable ones as well), as it has been shared over the article's talk page here, following which I've raised a request for copy-editing assistance with WP:GOCER - would also like to point out that before that, I'd already requested for a peer review as well. Now, I can try and fix the prose in question here but I highly doubt that I would be able to bring it up to perfect standards all by myself and in case that is a criteria that fails a DYK nomination, then I would suggest we proceed accordingly.
- B. Per your agreement with Hildabast, I'm a bit confused as to on what grounds - I ask this with a true intent to understand, so I may provide with further explanation / proof accordingly.
- 1. As shared earlier by me, I have confessed to being unable to find any independent article other than the original 2009 study; having said that, I have backed it with the evidence available from another study done in 2010, which negates the fact as to this being an example of a replication crisis that states "impossible to replicate on subsequent investigation, either by independent researchers or by the original researchers themselves" - please have me posted if it is still perceived to be otherwise.
- 2. Besides that, I've also proved and provided the rationale towards other studies that have drawn positive conclusions from the original study and proceeded with establishing their original subject of research. Roughly speaking, the original 2009 study has been cited by over 300 different studies per the Google Scholar search
- Now, since I'm unable to provide with any further evidence, might I understand if there is any piece of information that even remotely suggests that the 2009 study is incorrect?
Also, might I request you to disregard the quote used in the very first comment which states "...oxytocin epitomises what happens when enthusiasm..."? Please note that it has been taken out of context. I would strongly urge reviewers to read through the slate article's complete prose (including the title) and every single sentence to legitimately identify if it sides more in support of for this article or against - I would also like to avoid a woozle effect myself. Thanks. TopCipher (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC) - EDIT: Pardon my approach here but I still fail to see how far WP:MEDRS would be required on this (I realize it has to do with medicine and health and related scientific research) as I was unable to establish any relation with said guidelines towards this DYK nomination and the subject in question (Psychology, oxytocin, schadenfreude, emotions etc.). If anything, seems to pass WP:MEDSCI, WP:MEDASSESS and does further established how credible claims made in PubMed / PubMed Central are - which are the ones that I've used. Thanks. TopCipher (talk) 18:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Andrew Davidson: Thank you for your council and kindly allow me to first address the second segment of your review (i.e. about copy-edit) and then I would elaborate further over the first -
Essentially all the additions to the Schadenfreude article by TopCipher were copy-pasted from academic articles (not even paraphrased). Even though they were footnoted, extensive copying (or even quoting) violates our rules about copying text from other sources. This also explains why the tone and style of the writing were not appropriate for Wikipedia. So the article as proposed clearly fails the criterion "Within policy – meets core policies and guidelines, and in particular:...is free of close paraphrasing issues, copyright violations and plagiarism".
I have removed all this text. I trust that this will end consideration of this article for DYK. --Macrakis (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Without the text, there is no expansion. Marking for closure and closing in one edit. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
