Thread:Talk:Article feedback/Irrelevant/reply (63)

WhatamIdoing, you've got an integrity problem. Your replied to the poster who used IP address 208.54.5.202 with the false accusation that "The assertion that 10% of articles are about celebrities was yours", but that poster never made that faulty assertion. Worse than that lie, WhatamIdoing used that assumption to arrive at a trivial claim, then jumped to the unjustified weasel word conclusion that the assumption "is not a completely unreasonable guess" (i.e., it *is* an unreasonable guess) by claiming "the majority" of about 25% of Wikipedia articles are about celebrities. Depending on your weasel words "about" and "majority", the percentage of celebrity articles ranges from 0 to less than some "about" amount over 12.5%. Hence, the 10% assumption you used is unfounded, and lying about who originated that 10% assumption to cover your use is bad faith.

Even easier to debunk is your "simple distribution" claim, which you now qualify as "fairly simple distribution" (i.e., *not* a "simple distribution", whatever that weasel term means). Clearly the page views for all high traffic pages aren't equal, but perhaps you'll fabricate the claim they're "fairly" equal). Despite your claim of "no idea" about such statistics, you now claim "I did pull the page view data" and jumped to the conclusion the distribution of page views for "high-traffic articles...appear[s] to be a fairly simple distribution".  But what "distribution" metric did you apply to weasel the "fairly simple" judgment?  Did you look at the highest traffic article with the least page views and subtract that from the value for the most-viewed article, then just claim 'oh, that difference is less than the WhatamIdoing-standard "fairly simple" value used by the statistics industry?    Again, you have a "math problem" (your words), as you haven't provided the mathematical definition of "simple distribution" (maybe you should author a wikiarticle) and then mathematically justify how the "page view data" meets your math definition.

You also have a math problem regarding your much less than 20% claim for the total page views for celebrity pages, as it is still unjustified. But of course you didn't address that fallacy in your reply. Best wishes formulating another rationalizing reply (I'm confident it won't include the stats for page views per celebrity article, despite your indication that you can identify them)! 208.54.5.202 21:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)