Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The topic development has been reviewed according to the marking criteria. Written feedback is provided below, plus there is a general feedback page. Please also check the chapter's page history to see editing changes made whilst reviewing this chapter plan. Responses to this feedback can be made by starting a new section below and/or contacting the reviewer. Topic development marks are available via UCLearn. Note that marks are based on what was available before the due date, whereas the comments below may also be about all material on the page at the time of providing this feedback.
Description about self provided – consider expanding
Consider linking to your eportfolio page and/or any other professional online profile or resume such as LinkedIn. This is not required, but it can be useful to interlink your professional networks.
Link provided to book chapter (rename to make it more user-friendly)
At least one contribution has been made and summarised with indirect link(s) to evidence
Add direct links to evidence. To do this: View the page history, select the version of the page before and after your contributions, click "compare selected revisions", and then use this website address as a direct link to evidence for listing on your user page. For more info, see Making and summarising social contributions.
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi There! Not sure if you've checked this source out yet but I thought it could provide helpful information. It discusses the Jumping-to conclusion bias and if it has a more pronounced rate in those who display a strong belief in conspiracy theories.
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This chapter has been reviewed according to the marking criteria. Written feedback is provided below, plus there is a general feedback page. Please also check the chapter's page history to check for editing changes made whilst reviewing through the chapter. Chapter marks will be available via UCLearn along with social contribution marks and feedback. Keep an eye on Announcements.
Very good use of embedded in-text interwiki links to Wikipedia articles. Adding more interwiki links for the first mention of key words and technical concepts would make the text even more interactive. See example.
No use of embedded in-text links to related book chapters. Embedding in-text links to related book chapters helps to integrate this chapter into the broader book project.
Basic use of image(s)
No use of table(s)
No use of feature box(es)
No use of quiz(zes)
Basic use of case studies or examples
Excellent use of interwiki links in the "See also" section
Basic use of external links in the "External links" section
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments1 person in discussion
It seems likely that this trope or archetype is maintained as a fixture of popular culture for the purpose of casting doubt and uncertainty upon various inconvenient disclosures and dissent. In other words, someone who claims that the earth is flat and builds such a reputation around various false or incredulous claims, or even just presents such an appearance, would then be a poor representative for a given disclosure or scandal and may harm the credibility of certain people or information merely by association alone. Or rather, that's what I'd do if I wanted to ruin the credibility of some disclosure or political objective. Send a bunch of kooks to lend their "authority" to the matter. I think the article needs to at least acknowledge this possibility, which is self-evident as a public relations strategy. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 23:37, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
I implore the author(s) to consider this carefully, and I'll ping @Jtneill: since they seem to be the primary author. I'm hardly the first person to observe that psychiatry is frequently abused to pathologize dissent or otherwise control public opinion. Broadly, the article conflates "conspiratorial beliefs" with irrational thought patterns, and obviously this might give the reader a skewed perspective. I could go on, but I'll wait to see what others have to say. AP295 (discuss • contribs) 13:59, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply