This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pacific Northwest tree octopus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There are two whitespace lines above the "Results" section divider. Could you remove one of them? 72.77.42.118 (talk) 16:42, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
This is fake!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.146.228 (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Please change Only 6 out of the 53 school children (11%) viewed the website as unreliable.[9] Each of these 6 school children had just participated in a lesson that used this website to teach them to be suspicious of information online. to 7 out of the 53 school children (13%) viewed the website as unreliable.[9] Each of these 6 school children had just participated in a lesson that used this website to teach them to be suspicious of information online. Due to Recent information — Preceding unsigned comment added by HelloCrister (talk • contribs) 05:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
the tree octopus has only seven arms. 132.235.84.57 (talk) 01:21, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It was an internet hoax 50.219.66.58 (talk) 13:17, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
I propose the inclusion of a study by Unger and Rollins published in 2021. This study is particularly noteworthy because the authors drew from a sample of college students, as opposed to past studies that have primarily focused on younger demographics. More information about the study and a link to the full pdf article can be found here https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1306175.
Proposed addition to “Design” under “Internet literary studies”:
Unger and Rollins (2021) extended research to the collegiate level by investigating how 90 first-year college students enrolled in an introductory organismal biology course at a small private university in the US would navigate and respond to a two-part online activity centered around the fictitious species. In Part 1, students were directed to a seemingly credible website about the Pacific Northwest tree octopus and then asked three questions about the species (e.g., if it is real). For Part 2, students were shown a clearly satirical video debunking the species and then posed more detailed questions about its authenticity, believing sources, and the importance of critical thinking in science.
Proposed addition to “Results” under “Internet literary studies”:
In the 2021 study, the authors found that, of the 90 complete responses, 90% of students believed the species was real in Part 1, while only 10% doubted its existence. In Part 2, after viewing the satirical video, 92.2% concluded it was a fake species, but 7.8% still believed it to be real. The students’ responses to the various questions collected indicated that few conducted further research on the species, even if they were suspicious about the species’ existence. Their responses also suggested they hadn't given the activity much thought. However, the activity was designed to be short, and the students were not asked to conduct further research. Still, the revelation for many that the species was fictitious only came after watching the satirical video. The authors suggested that students might not invest adequate effort in critically evaluating short assignments or might take instructional content at face value, reflecting a lack in independent thinking. Encouragingly, though, students overwhelmingly appreciated the activity. To enhance scientific literacy and critical thinking, the authors recommended incorporating such inquiry activities in introductory biology courses, complemented by group discussions. They also advocated for instructors to encourage students to embrace the Sagan standard of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" when presenting or talking about the activity.
More information on the Sagan standard can be found here Sagan standard
I appreciate your consideration.
24.51.239.147 (talk) 23:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
The Wikipedia on most individual species usually contains a box at upper right telling us whether the species falls into categories such as Extinct, Critically Endangered, Threatened, Of Concern, Least Vulnerable. That's not a verbatim list. It's categories LIKE that. This status-designation is missing from this Wikipedia article on this species. That's not the norm.2600:1700:6759:B000:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 01:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Jimmyjimjames (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello i would like to edit it and add some fact about it and why it was created. Also you have missed some points I would like to add. I don't want to change the whole thing just some stuff is the top and the description. Thank you and hopefully I will hear from you soon.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
P6F9 (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
hi my name is what my names is who