Talk:Reliability theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Statistics (Rated Stub-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.

Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
 

Article[edit]

What is this about? I was just going to put this article on VfD but would also like to encourage the (anonymous) author to try again (from scratch).

How can you explain "Reliability testing" by defining "reliability theory"?

<KF> 08:10, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

'Reliability Theory' in Epistemology?[edit]

There is a different kind of 'reliability theory' which is used in Epistemology. Roughly it concerns the relation of testimony (or attestation) to truth. Anybody knows enough about it to write a bit more? --Sascha.leib 12:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Move to Reliability[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 07:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


Reliability theoryReliability

I'm not sure why the main article for reliability is a disambig page. When reliability is spoken of, it virtually always means the probabilistic sense which is outlined here, and all/most of the disambig articles refer to. I would do some work on the disambig page itself, but it doesn't appear to be editable??? I suggest we move this article to reliability, leave a redirect, and rework the disambiguation page, if it's even necessary. 70.250.198.35 (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment the disambiguation page says "Reliability theory, as a theoretical concept, to explain biological aging and species longevity" which is not what this page says... 76.66.197.151 (talk) 05:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose it is usually spoken about in this manner, but rather about a characteristic of a person's persona, which is not what is outlined in this article. 76.66.197.151 (talk) 05:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • This article seems to describe some sort of management sciences-type matter, not the usual common dictionary meaning of wikt:reliability. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Anthony Appleyard. 69.3.72.9 (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.