This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
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.
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?184.108.40.206 (talk) 14:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Text and image of payoff matrix are mismatchedEdit
Both the opening text and image use the values 0, 1, 2. But they use them to mean opposite things. In the text, the values are years in prison, i.e., bad things to be minimized. In the image, the values are payoffs, i.e., good things to presumably be maximized, though this is not mentioned in the caption. Also, in the text, the moves are betraying and staying silent, but in the image, the moves are cooperation and defection. The connection between these terms is not obvious or explained. The image is more standard, but the text is more intuitive. Not sure of the best way to make them agree. Honestrosewater (talk) 04:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
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.
You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.
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.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.