This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Statistics This page is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics 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.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics

Archives

Archive 1: March 2008 – August 2008 Archive 2: August 2008 – July 2009 Archive 3: July 2009 – May 2010 Archive 4: May 2010 –

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

An IP editor User:81.98.35.149 continued to engage in incivility and personal attacks, e.g. "you are larely ill-informed. stop making stupid changes to well-established articles without gaining consensus". The IP's previous median edit had the summary "opinionated dh who is keen to denigrate established sources without providing any new sources", whatever that meant. The IP restored the use of multiset rather than list, etc.

Previous incivility includes "only the most arrogant editors dump huge blocks of text and expect others to point out where sources are missing: supply at least some per standard".

I and editor Benwing have tried to civil discussions with the IP. The IP's response to Benwing began with "Don't try your bombast with me" (or something similar).

(BTW, I introduced the citations to Kemperman's famous article and to the Vardi--Zhang method for the spatial median in recent edits, following my having introduced Oja's recent friendly monograph.) There is no point in my trying to improve the article by referring to e.g. Chris Small's survey until this IP editor is under control.

That edit restored citations to Wolfram's MathWorld for propositions that are not contained in the MathWorld "reference". (Also, the MathWorld site is not a reliable source for this topic.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've issued a level 1 civility warning, to the user.--Salix (talk): 08:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked the MathWorld citation and it does cover the two points made in the article: (1) use of the average of central values in the even-sample-size case; (2) explicit statement to the two notations cited ... so at least this seems retainable (after shifting one of the cite templates slightly closer). So you were wrong on your first point, were you any more careful on other points/edits? Looking through your edit comments in this sequence, you were not particulaly civil yourself. I note you called MathWorld "unreliable", whereas it provides a reasonable summary of what a median is, and you didn't replace it with another reference. I haven't bothered to check many of the other changes, but it seems to me that the existing lead section is preferable to your version (which introduces undefined concepts and arguments that would take too much space to cover even minimally in a lead section). After all, the lead section was carefully honed by many editors over a substantial period of time, so perhpas this IP editor is correct that you should have discussed it on the Talk page. Of course I have experience where you like to demand this of others, as in this case, but don't think of doing this yourself. It seems common practice that if a change is reverted you explain/seek-consensus on the Talk page before putting it back in. Melcombe (talk) 11:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Melcombe!

I thought you would have an interest in this IP's edits, given the similarity of views (along with the somewhat gruffer tone). :)

I don't remember commenting on the triviality about an even number of data, so your first point is moot. I have no objection to a discussion of this triviality, if high quality leading sources discuss it.

You seem to misrepresent MathWorld, which does not have the disquisition on multiple notation for the median, although it may use two notations---again, a pointless triviality. Have you or the IP inserted a discussion on the different notation for the arithmetic means it its article? The disquisition in the WP article was OR (perhaps by synthesis) or misrepresentation of the (unreliable) source.

Unreliable?? MathWorld discusses the mean for an arbitrary distribution, so it is not fit for a first course in statistics, as I noted before. It also cites old dull references rather than HQRS. I agree that it is not worthless.

Actually, the record shows that I have inserted standard HQRS. You can see that my emphases are consistent with recent survey articles on nonparametrics in JASA 2000 and Statistical Science, whereas Melcombe and the gruffer IP are consistent with ... each other! :)

Reverting 7 of my edits is hardly sporting. Sure, revert some, and keep the good ones. Let us discuss the edits on the talk page, per usual, while avoiding the use of "bombast", etc.

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to misunderstand the use of citations in Wikipedia. Each backs up (verifies) the information/opinion in the sentence or paragraph to which it is attached. The appearance of a citation in an article doesn't mean it can be expected to back-up any other information in the article and I don't know why you would expect it to do so. The relevance of "a first course in statistics" is beyond me, as that is certainly not what Wikipedia is meant to be. The point is that the MathWorld page provides a reliable source that an ill-informed reader can check easily and without being faced by heaps of irrelevant information, specifically for the two points being made. Perhaps the IP editor is a fan of MathWorld and you insulted his/her favourite reading, so it would be understandable if you were insulted back ... perhaps you should tone down your edit comments. Wikipedia has standards for what can be counted as reliable sources and MathWorld meets these... and you only need to do a simple search in Wikipedia to see just how many articles make use of that source. And yes, even "trivial" points need citations, particularly when they are basic, as Wikipedia has a reputation for containing misinformation slipped in when no one is watching, so any user would be well-advised to check as much as possible. You only have to look at the edit history to see how much the article has attracted edits that needed to be reverted.

You will have to discuss with the IP editor reasons for reverting changes. I put back in (some of ?) the citations you mentioned as having been omitted, but I'll steer clear of the rest as it is too boring to go through lots of before and after comparisons.

Melcombe (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Melcombe, you justify insults of me--- of which the IP provided many, e.g. ill-informed, ignorant, dick-head ;) --- because I criticized a page on MathWorld!

Do you want to apologize for the incivility towards other editors, while you are at it?

You admit that MathWorld claims that every distribution has a mean? It is not a reliable source about the statistical concept of medians. I am familiar with WP:RS, which states that a source may be reliable for some topics and unreliable for others. You seem to be claiming that MathWorld is reliable for everything!

MathWorld is better on computer-algebra related topics and surrounding areas of mathematics. It has a fine precis of the Beauzamy-Degot identity.

Other editors can easily compare our respective edits for accuracy and veracity, and for the quality of sources (in particular for having a global perspective rather than representing Kendall's dictionaries, which were written in the 1950s~with slim updating since).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you extend this discussion? I justify nothing has it as nothing to do with me. I did point out that in that sequence of edits you were the first to be uncivil .... and then you call down opprobrium on someone else's head (a relatively new editor) for the same (perhaps slightly worse) fault. You seem to think that somewhere on MathWorld it makes some claim about the existence of the mean. If this is meant to be the page linked in the median article then there is no such "claim" ... in fact the mean is barely mentioned and there is no discussion of existence (and why would there be?). It is clear from the edit comments that you were the one saying that MathWorld is flawed... I have never indicated anything like that I am "claiming that MathWorld is reliable for everything" ... in fact I have only ever looked at a few pages that happen to have been linked from Wikipedia. You still misunderstand the purpose of citations... they are there for verification, they are not there to imply "this is the most up-to-date and technically sophisicated source possible". Citations are not a list of suggested reading material... there can be (and sometimes are) separate sectons for that. As to supposed "quality" of sources, that is a matter of personal opinion but you should recall that Wikipedia is intended for a general readership and that there should be at least some basic-level sources to reflect this. Books contaning what they will consider mathematical gibberish are somewhat useless to the general publc. As to the age of sources ... well in mathematics if something is true it is always true, and the meaning of the most basic terms in statistics has not changed substantially if at all since the 60's. You say "Other editors can easily compare our respective edits ..." ... yes they can. Melcombe (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The account may be new, Melcombe. I would not bet that the editor be new; would you?

The new account is uncivil and insulting to other editors, besides me. I put down on article on MathWorld, but not the new account's editor, who has as much to offer as you. ;)

The new account's revealed preference for "multiset" over "list", the mastication of even sample-sizes and uniqueness, etc., should concern you, given your stated concern with popular exposition.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the real world. This is a generic problem in wikipedia, for high-importance, popular articles. My first experience was long ago, when some undergrad facing a mid-term exam asked me, personally, for help on orbital angular momentum or something like that. I spent hours fixing up the article. He read it, didn't understand it, and replaced it with total nonsense. Probably failed his mid-term. Think strategically: what should the WP policy be for these things? linas (talk) 23:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Such strategies are already in place: WP:CITE, WP:NOR. Melcombe (talk) 08:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Newman–Keuls method for discussion of renaming the corresponding article to have Student-Newman–Keuls ... Melcombe (talk) 09:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At present, and since 2004, statistical data redirects to statistics, which doesn't really serve the purpose. (Specifically, I mean data, not data analysis and not "statistic". ) Does anyone have a good source from which to start a reasonable article. The best I have found online is http://www.emathzone.com/tutorials/basic-statistics/collection-of-statistical-data.html , which does start by defining statistical data. Melcombe (talk) 08:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello dear editors, As part of my academic work I am currently working on improving the False discovery rate article. And I would like your help in ideas on how to improve the article:

1. Do you think the order of the sections makes sense? (I thought a lot about it, and the current order makes the most sense to me - what do you think?)
2. Are there any sections that are missing from this article, but should clearly be included?
3. Can you help me grade the current quality and importance of the article? (since the main paper introducing the FDR is the 3rd most cited statistical paper ever, with over 14,000 citations, I believe it can be said that the importance of the topic is high - but I am not sure how much)
4. What other general recommendations can you give me for making this a "featured level" article? (I've read the relevant Wikipedia articles for doing it so - but I am wondering what YOU see is clearly missing/can be improved upon)

With regards, Tal Galili (talk) 21:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all,

As part of a course assignment, students in my class have finished working on several articles, and they are ready to be reviewed with suggestions for future improvements (done by them and/or future editors). The articles are:

• False discovery rate
• Familywise error rate
• Multiple comparisons
• False positive rate
• Data dredging
• Omnibus test (this was previously a stub, and it now needs a lot of wikifying)

With regards, Tal Galili (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've written this somewhat hastily scrawled user-space draft. I have in mind that with some further work it can evolve into something to be moved into the article space under the title Behrens–Fisher distribution (currently a redirect). In its early stages that will be maybe two or three times as long as the present draft. I'll be back to do more work on it. In the mean time, maybe others can improve it as well. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael I think this is a really great article. Btyner (talk) 03:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to comment on the following RfC:

Talk:Monty Hall problem#Conditional or Simple solutions for the Monty Hall problem?

The Monty Hall problem is an especially interesting one because for many people it is their first exposure to probability calculations, and because it has a distinct psychological aspect; why do so many engineers, scientists and mathematicians get it wrong at first?

The question the RfC asks concerns the place conditional probability should have in the Monty Hall problem article. We could really use some informed opinions on this. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]