We talked about this before. I disagree with wikipedia's philosophy, and don't have time to police edits there. Wikipedia doesn't have a process in place to recognize that the opinion of someone like me on a subject like confounding is worth considerably more than the opinion of a randomly sampled internet person. I like *overflow a lot better.

One somewhat subtle point in that article is that it is titled "confounding" (which is easy to define), but then tries to define "a confounder" which is much harder, and might not be a well-defined concept according to some people.