Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Statistics: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Jorenham (talk | contribs)
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Statistics/Archive 7) (bot
Line 10: Line 10:
|archive = Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Statistics/Archive %(counter)d
|archive = Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Statistics/Archive %(counter)d
}}
}}

== Statistics in Serial Killer Nurse cases ==
The Lucy Letby trial in the UK is about a nurse who kept being present when suspicious events happened on her shifts. Or was she a bothersome person who kept complaining when she saw mistakes being made, and are the events called suspicious because she was present? This is a subject of intense controversy in the UK. There is a Wikipedia article on Lucy Letby, and there has been a lot of activity by editors on the Wikipedia article about myself, because of my own activities in the public arena calling for a retrial and arguing her innocence. On the Lucy Letby talk page I argued that editors should distinguish between "being guilty" and "being found guilty". For that reason, I will also be attacked for writing these remarks here. It will be seen as an attempt to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for campaigning. I have already been labelled by the main stream media in the UK as a nutty conspiracy theorist and some sort of terrorist, attempting to undermine the rule of law. (Deja vu: law professors in the Netherlands wrote the same thing about me during the trial of Lucia de Berk). While the trial was going on, Dutch police came to my house in the Netherlands in the night with a letter from UK police, threatening me with arrest next time I visit the UK. I don't want to enter into any discussion here, because it is clear that I do have multiple conflicts of interest. I'm just hoping that Wikipedia editors from outside the UK with interests in statistics, law, and forensic science, will start following Wikipedia developments concerning statistics and the Lucy Letby trial. [[User:Gill110951|Richard Gill]] ([[User talk:Gill110951|talk]]) 06:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


== Requested move at [[Talk:Relative change and difference#Requested move 24 September 2023]] ==
== Requested move at [[Talk:Relative change and difference#Requested move 24 September 2023]] ==

Revision as of 17:08, 24 December 2023

Main page Talk page Members Templates Resources
WikiProject iconStatistics Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Relative change and difference#Requested move 24 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite (talkcontribs) 14:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thread that also has statistics

Hello. There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Many blocks shouldn't be indef, which has an element of statistics involved. Specifically it relates to calculation of the margin of error. If you are interested in providing input about how margin of error is calculated or the thread in general, you are welcome to join the discussion. Regards,--Thinker78 (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consistent notation of the quantile function

I noticed that different notations are used to denote the quantile function of probability distributions. The most common ones are (e.g. Tukey lambda distribution), (e.g. Dagum distribution), (e.g. Kumaraswamy distribution), and Laplace distribution. In other cases, the quantile function is redubbed as "random variate generation", and described as a transformation of a standard uniform random variable (rv), i.e. (e.g. Burr Type XII distribution).

Although I realize that this is similarly the case in the literature, I believe that arbitrarily inconsistent notation like this, can be very confusing to readers, especially newcomers. But unlike the published literature, here, the notation can be made consistent.

I don't have a strong preference myself, but I (usually) prefer over nowadays, since both and have no standard for the name of the parameter (I've seen , , and used in different places). I can also see that standard uniform transformation notation, e.g. for the standard exponential distribution, could be a good choice, but only if it is described as being the "quantile function", and not only "random variate generation". jorenham (talk) 14:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we were going to try to standardise, I would prefer Q(u), particularly because it leads naturally to q(u) for the density quantile function. But note also that adopting a standard on Wikipedia would make it inconsistent with the way the quantile function is usually presented in the literature for some distributions. Newystats (talk) 02:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Coupling the QF notation with that of the QDF makes sense to me.
I guess that notational inconsistency with the literature is inevitable. I even stumbled accross a today (C.L. Mallows, '73).
Perhaps it's a good idea to explicitly list the common QF notations on the quantile function page? jorenham (talk) 02:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]