Talk:Carol Dweck

I am the son-in-law of the subject, Carol S. Dweck. I have written a proposed addition to include certain Honors and Awards. This was prompted by the announcement today (2017-09-19) of her being an inaugural recipient of the recently created Yidan Prize for Educational Research. Since this is a remarkably substantial prize ($US3.9 million) designed to stimulate research and development in education worldwide, I feel it could be of interest to Wikipedia readers. I included selected additional memberships and honors to provide a more general context for the new section.

Because of the obvious COI, I would appreciate an independent review of my proposed addition (see below). I reviewed the Living Biography and COI help sections, provided multiple secondary sources (their numbering would obviously change when appended to existing sources), and worked to maintain a dispassionate voice, sticking only to the pertinent facts. A review of my formatting would also be helpful since I haven't edited in some time. I also propose an external link to the Yidan Foundation website since it is associated with several educators and university administrators of note and might be of interest to readers beyond the subject of Dweck.

If this addition is acceptable, may I suggest another possible way I might be able to improve on the article? I saw the criticism that there are too many primary sources. As I am very familiar with her work, would it be appropriate for me to research and obtain more suitable secondary sources, providing I submit my work for review as I'm doing here? Dweck also has a history of speaking on education before the U.N. and advising the LA Unified School District, but those might be too much in the way of puffery. An external link to her TED talk video, without exposition, might be helpful, though, as an additional resource for the interested reader.

Thanks for any assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CBinLA (talk • contribs)

There seems to be a possible history of COI editing happening on the article, lots of specific and uncited information about her personal life, work, childhood and education. I am adding this note here for future editors to consider. Jooojay (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

These news articles themselves do not reference the original studies critical of Dweck's research. If this is to be a credible criticism, would it not do to actually reference meta-analyses of studies testing growth mindset, as opposed to articles written by buzzfeed authors that do not actually cite any sources?

Other aspects of the criticism section have zero source at all, and then again, notes opinions, not facts, or evidence.

The field of education and educational psychology is first and foremost driven by evidence based practice, not opinion and hearsay.

I would support a review into the section. —1.125.105.99 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 25 October 2018‎ (UTC)

I see lots of refs now, and perhaps this and more could be added. No benefit in growth mindset theory, study says Shenme (talk) 03:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

In the Criticism section, non-replicability of her researches has been written using references 22 and 23; and following them is another line claiming replicability of her researches citing references 24 and 25. I came here as a reader to know about Carol Dweck; not for the purpose of editing. But, these two lines claiming totally opposite have confused me. I guess it will confuse most other readers too. Can somebody who is more familiar with all these references help explain to the reader more clearly?

Together with this, I have another question popping in my mind regarding these kind of opposite references? Typically, how can wikipedians usually decide which references to take? Is there any rule-of-thumb to follow? I hope this answer will help me in editing future wikipedia posts.

Dhawell.hlugalay (talk) 04:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I have seen some edits recently in this section on 30-Jun-2020. Now, reference 23 has disappeared and replaced by 22 in its place. Now, reference 24 became 23 (now mentioned as Psychological Science Journal) and 25 became 24(now mentioned as Nature Journal). So, I'm assuming some editor are trying to make it clear quietly. But, still overall issue is not resolved yet. Now, it's 22 against "23 and 24". We still don't know who is right.

Dhawell.hlugalay (talk) 10:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

One partial sentence has an unhelpful number of tags and refs. The text is:

Dweck has primary research interests in motivation

That text is followed by:

1. citation needed tag
2. ref
3. failed verification tag
4. ref
5. ref
6. ref
7. ref
8. ref
9. original research?
10. excessive citations

(Okay, that last one made me snicker.) I don't feel like trawling through edit history to figure out what happened. But seriously, if it's that contentious and difficult to verify, just drop it from the article. That mess is not serving readers well. Schazjmd (talk) 21:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Fixed by simplifying. Her primary research interest being "mindset" should be non-contentious even among detractors. DFlhb (talk) 06:56, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I WP:BLAR'd our article on Mindset: The New Psychology of Success, which was IMO not worth keeping live in mainspace due to being too superficial. Obviously notable so if someone has the time to write something good, go ahead. DFlhb (talk) 10:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)