Open main menu

Wikipedia β

Talk:Prisoner's dilemma

Former featured article Prisoner's dilemma is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 16, 2004.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
January 19, 2004 Refreshing brilliant prose Kept
April 16, 2008 Featured article review Demoted
Current status: Former featured article
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7 (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  Quality: C-Class
Checklist icon
 ???  Importance: not yet rated

Dr. Duffy's comment on this articleEdit

Dr. Duffy has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:


A rambling mess. No mention of dominance, Nash equilibrium or the uniqueness of the Nash equilibrium in the game form.

"A very narrow interpretation rationality" is a weak, subjective statement. Indeed rationality in the context of this game is not defined but simply involves each player playing a best response to the payoff incentives of the game.


We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Duffy has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:


  • Reference : John Duffy & Huan Xie, 2012. "Group Size and Cooperation among Strangers," Working Papers 12010, Concordia University, Department of Economics.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Removed the vague mention of "restrictive interpretation of rationality" and moved the discussion of dominance and nash equilibrium up a section to be more prominent (though it was there in the General Form section), but I don't think it fits in the (already quite long) lede. Binkyuk (talk) 14:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Dubious criticism of Hofstadter's briefcase gameEdit

After describing Hofstadter's briefcase version of PD, the article contains this sentence: "However, in this case both players cooperating and both players defecting actually give the same result, assuming no gains from trade exist, so chances of mutual cooperation, even in repeated games, are few." That seems like a strange way to interpret the case, and hardly a criticism of it. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to assume, since they're trading at all, that player A has a utility-function according to which diamonds & money > diamonds > money > nothing, and player B has a utility function according to which diamonds & money > money > diamonds > nothing? Does this criticism show up anywhere in a reliable source?50.191.21.222 (talk) 14:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Prisoner's dilemma. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Prisoner's dilemma. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Return to "Prisoner's dilemma" page.