Did the New York Times make Wordle harder?

28 Oct 2023 | A statement is not fact

Many forms of misinformation have a clear source — authors or journalists misquoting a study, or a famous person giving an extreme quote. That allows us to check the underlying source, as in this example.

But some misinformation is in the form of an urban legend, which spreads through the grapevine with no clear source. After The New York Times bought Wordle, many people claimed — quite vehemently, given the addictiveness of Wordle — that the NYT had unfairly made it harder. This may have been driven by confirmation bias, since many players disliked the NYT’s political stance. They made increasingly strong claims based only on their own (or others’) subjective assessments.

Without a clear source for the difficulty of Wordle, you can’t check a person or a study. But, if you’re willing to get your hands dirty, you can investigate the underlying claim itself. Carnegie Mellon computer science professor David Andersen dug into the underlying source file behind Wordle to download the actual word list. In what’s below, it’s the ‘main.4d41d2be.js’ file.

He then ran a Python script comparing the old and new lists, and found this:

What does this mean in plain English? That the NYT removed exactly six words (fibre, lunch, agora, pupal, slave, and wench) and added no new ones, so Wordle became slightly easier, not harder.

Now the person on the street can’t be expected to go through the steps of a Carnegie Mellon computer science professor and conduct the checks ourselves. But what we can do is to see if there’s any evidence behind a claim before believing it, and certainly before sharing it — the third and final tip in my TED talk was to ‘pause before sharing’. Yet if we’re biased against the New York Times, we’re willing to believe claims that it made Wordle harder based on no more evidence that a few people saying ‘I think it’s become trickier’. As this Twitter thread explains, this was a great example of how confirmation bias causes conspiracy theories to spread.

If at first you don’t succeed, try try again

If at first you don’t succeed, try try again

One of the papers that I cited most prominently in Grow the Pie is "Corporate Sustainability: First Evidence on Materiality". It shows that ESG doesn't always pays off: firms with high ESG scores don't beat the market; only those that focus their ESG efforts on issues material to their industry. For example, climate change is a serious global threat, but it isn’t the most important concern for a tech company that conducts its business in the cloud rather than along the coastline. Thus, a tech company that’s best-in-class in its carbon footprint doesn’t beat the market; instead, it ...
Want a more innovative conclusion? Innovate the conclusion

Want a more innovative conclusion? Innovate the conclusion

'Want a more innovative company? Hire more women'. The title hooked me immediately. I’m an avid follower of the @TEDTalks Twitter page, but I don’t have time to watch every talk. But when I saw one with the title ‘Want a more innovative company? Hire more women’, I wanted to hit play instantly.
You couldn’t even make it up

You couldn’t even make it up

Confirmation bias leads us to make up excuses to dismiss facts we don’t like. If our favourite politician gets elected and the economy tanks, we’d argue it would have done worse had she not been in charge. Or we’d protest that we need to wait another year before we can truly evaluate her performance.