Talk:Standard deviation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Mathematics (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject Mathematics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mathematics 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.
Mathematics rating:
B Class
Top Importance
 Field: Probability and statistics
One of the 500 most frequently viewed mathematics articles.
This article has comments.
WikiProject Statistics (Rated C-class, Top-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.

C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
 

Unclear language in "Corrected sample standard deviation" section[edit]

The first sentence, for example, seems to be defining several things and it's unclear what is the subject for the verb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkfunk (talkcontribs) 20:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

General comment this and other main stats pages.[edit]

I am re-teaching myself stats through reading many of these articles.

I have seen a lot of "improvements" to the stats pages on basics like standard deviation over the last few years. I have valued the excellent graphics that have been developed. I have also valued the sections with a rigorous mathematical equation based discussion of relevant issues.

In the process of these improvements though, I have felt that the wording of the introductory sections to many of these articles has become more complicated in the language trying to ensure exactness in initial concept, including boundaries, nuances and exceptions to the basic concept. All in the one paragraph.

If you already understand the topic, then this precision of definition all makes sense. However most people are seeking a beginning understanding, and in this regard the precision adds to many things to keep track of in getting the basic concept. Reading these intro sections, often I now find it difficult to get the basic "jist" of it. My response has been, nope don't get it, to hard, too complicated. Just can not get my head around it.

I have not edited the intro sections myself as I can see a lot of thought and care has gone into them to ensure they are correct in the full detail of the concept being introduced. However I do suggest consideration be given to much lighter simpler laymans style description to basic concepts that may not be that precise, but does convey the jist and feel of the basic concept.

I present the issue as I have experienced it, but I do not have the skills to write what is needed. I think such intro paragraphs are better written by those who have a conceptual understanding but not a detailed technical mathematical understanding of the topic.

So first a laymans very basic jist of the concept as an intro paragraph.

Then a more refined, technically correct refinement of the concept, followed by various diagramatic and more focused expansion on aspects of the concept. Some basic examples perhaps in the most basic form.

Then for those who want to technically use and apply these concepts and do the statistics in practice, the more rigorous and mathematical discussions of the topic and subtopics. For those already familiar with the concept the rigorous mathematical explanation of various aspects is an excellent and important part of Wikipedia in my view.

With this page, I think the coverage of combining samples does belong on this page. The same topic may also belong on the other page as well. Certainly I looked for it here. CitizenofEarth001 (talk) 11:01, 16 August 2014 (UTC)