Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012/Discussion: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Timetime: Re |
→Constantly diminishing support: basic statistical error |
||
Line 514:
:::::That was one of the reasons why I devoted an entire section above to rebutting arguments from Position 2. I (correctly) assumed that, while there would be far more substantial rationales on the Option 1 side than the Option 2 side (as was the trend in the previous RfC), some of it would just be ungrounded speculation and much of it wouldn't directly rebut the Option 2 supporters' arguments, regardless of their merits. —<font color="228B22">[[User:Jéské Couriano|''Jeremy'']] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|v^_^v]]</font> <sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|Bori!]]</small></sup> 21:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
::::One of the closers has indicated that the close [[User_talk:The_Blade_of_the_Northern_Lights#RfC|may come fairly soon]], and it's unlikely that the close will be: "The winner is Option [whatever]. Have a nice day." It will be easier to chart a course of action after we see what they have to say. I'm hoping some of the Option 1 guys will talk it out and come up with a course of action, and the same for some of the Option 2 guys. - Dank ([[User talk:Dank|push to talk]]) 13:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
:Kww's statistical analysis is, unfortunately, seriously misguided. I don't have the time and won't claim the expertise to do a full exposition of the [[convergent series]] principles involved, but his conclusion that support would eventual drop to the 50% level involves a basic statistical mistake. The point that a series like this converges to isn't determined simply by its concluding pattern, because as participation declines the "weight" os subsequent parts of the series declines. It's a trivial exercise (albeit one that makes many of those who aren't statistically adept suffer from blinding headaches and bleeding eyes) to construct a series of the form (A1-B1)+(A2-B2)+(A3-B3) . . . where, after a certain point, the B-terms are always greater than the A-terms, so that the sum of each additional pair is less than zero -- but the series converges (levels off) at positive number, never equaling or falling below zero. Several of the examples given in [[convergent series]] demonstrate this principle. There's no reason to believe that the outcome wouldn't stabilize at 60% or higher as participation fell off. [[User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|Hullaballoo Wolfowitz]] ([[User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|talk]]) 17:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
===Timetime===
| |||