Talk:Memory conformity
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Memory conformity 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: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | The contents of the Memory Conformity page were merged into Memory conformity on February 18, 2013. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Underlying mechanisms
editThis section is very nicely done, with the three paragraphs for the three sources of memory conformity. However, what is described in the text of Memory distortion, starting with the sentence: "One can experience distortion due to PEI when those who witnessed the same event or took part in the same experience talk about what they saw or experienced" sounds to me as indistinguishable from Information influence: "Information influence describes a kind of conformity in which people tend to report what someone else has stated previously because they depend on the other person to resolve uncertainty." and Normative influence: "For example, research has shown that people who have social interactions after an event are more likely to change their thoughts about the event to something other than what they actually witnessed." Yet these three are differentiated. I think that this difference needs to be made clearer. I don't have access to most of the sources used, so I cannot do it myself. Anybody else can? Lova Falk talk 09:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
This section is great, but maybe could use a little more expansion, specifically the section for source monitoring errors. I added in a link to the source-monitoring errors article for further information. Kjimenez44 (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
"Sometimes it is the mandela effect though"
edit- Thread retitled from "The Mandela Effect vandal is back".
@RickinBaltimore: you removed the discussion of this topic and the apparent vandalism here. But he's back (presumably 2601:241:100:66ab:94ce:1ed3:491c:73d0 and 31.49.2.154 are the same). I don't want to be the victim of a 3RR trap, but obviously the community cared enough about it recently to do something about it. Even a longer (and more skeptical) discussion as found in False memory might make it go away. But I don't care enough about the topic to do the work. @IanHMiller: and @Zell Faze: you were concerned earlier in the year too. David Brooks (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- I've blocked the IPs for a month (given that they're static and have been vandalising this article for weeks), and I have the article watched - I'll block or protect as appropriate if it continues. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- Is there a way to blacklist the word "Mandela" or something? I feel like that could solve the problem, as the word is not used in the article, and all cases of vandalism so far have used the word. IanHMiller (talk) 20:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
- Hi. 31.49.2 here, my IP naturally changes, so this isn't sockpuppeting btw. Sorry for the vandalism, but I would like to make it clear that I am NOT 2601:241... There is no one single 'Mandela effect vandal' and 'he' is most certainly not 'back'. Most of the edits were done by completely different people. The only thing they have is common is that we're all fans of the YouTuber 'Comment Ettiquette', making a reference to this video of his. Just look at the page history, clearly ALL those accounts can't be my sockpuppets, right? And, unless you are prepared to believe in a global conspiracy of Wikipedia vandals, they can hardly be my meatpuppets either. Thank you for reading this, and, again, sorry for the vandalism. --217.42.180.60 (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- Also, more proof of my naturally changing IP/most of them not being me. 31 only has contribs by me, and 109 only by them (in fact they have only one edit), but this IP came 'pre-loaded' as it were. Somebody has used this IP before. Believe me, if I had a choice, an IP that already has two edits from 2009 relating to whether or not actors have had anal sex on film is not one I would choose. --217.42.180.60 (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- As a side note, this is the first ever time I've received a 'pre-loaded' (as it were) IP... and his contribs are about pornography. --217.42.180.60 (talk) 14:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- Also, more proof of my naturally changing IP/most of them not being me. 31 only has contribs by me, and 109 only by them (in fact they have only one edit), but this IP came 'pre-loaded' as it were. Somebody has used this IP before. Believe me, if I had a choice, an IP that already has two edits from 2009 relating to whether or not actors have had anal sex on film is not one I would choose. --217.42.180.60 (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- Hi. 31.49.2 here, my IP naturally changes, so this isn't sockpuppeting btw. Sorry for the vandalism, but I would like to make it clear that I am NOT 2601:241... There is no one single 'Mandela effect vandal' and 'he' is most certainly not 'back'. Most of the edits were done by completely different people. The only thing they have is common is that we're all fans of the YouTuber 'Comment Ettiquette', making a reference to this video of his. Just look at the page history, clearly ALL those accounts can't be my sockpuppets, right? And, unless you are prepared to believe in a global conspiracy of Wikipedia vandals, they can hardly be my meatpuppets either. Thank you for reading this, and, again, sorry for the vandalism. --217.42.180.60 (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- Still bouncing on my 3RR trap to this tho 75.214.250.113 (talk) 02:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
I doubt 'a long and skeptical discussion' would make it go away, considering that nobody adding it is serious. --217.42.180.60 (talk) 17:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Removed this from the lead "An example of memory conformity is the mandela effect. " Aymp458 (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, this is a 1m-subscriber YouTuber who has a video where he jokes around and shows himself typing "Sometimes it is the mandela effect though" into the lead of this Wikipedia article. People are just copying that when they see the text is no longer there. --Lord Belbury (talk) 09:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)