Talk:How to Lie with Statistics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Statistics (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page or join the discussion.

Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Books (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

This article has comments here.

Twisted statistics[edit]

Huff talks less about errors made during the research itself, than about the countless ways advertisers and politicians twist the statistics after they've been gathered.

Hm, maybe I should mention that in the article. --Uncle Ed 20:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but he does touch on errors made during research; e.g., he discusses the problem of response rate in surveys and the problem of comparing apples to oranges when talking about whether a survey of Yale graduates' income can be compared to the Census Bureau's average income of all Americans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.104.37.17 (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit[edit]

I added the chapter names, info about the illustrator and a bit more about the book and its success

Still a Stub[edit]

This article has been tagged a stub for a long time. Is there anything else to add or to expand? 12:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It could have more on critical reaction, follow-up, that sort of thing ... but I agree, it is no longer a "stub" (which implies that basic material is missing). - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)