Jump to content

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/13 November 2011/Usage share of operating systems

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal | Cases

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wikiolap (talk | contribs) at 16:17, 22 November 2011 (→Discussion: wish it will be over). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
ArticleUsage share of operating systems
StatusOpen
Request date20:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Requesting partyDmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk)
Parties involvedDmitrij D. Czarkoff, WhatamIdoing, Jdm64, Harumphy, 1exec1, Dilaudid, Dmcq, Wikiolap, Professor marginalia, Useerup, Jasper Deng, Daniel.Cardenas
Mediator(s)thehistorian10 & Scjessey
CommentAwaiting indication from involved parties about whether or not mediation is still required

Request details

Where is the dispute?

Who is involved?

What is the dispute?

The central point of the dispute is whether to include Median line in the table in Usage share of operating systems. As the same principle forms the ground of multiple tables in Usage share of web browsers, this article was also attached.

The main questions the agreement is not reached upon:

  1. Does Median line violate WP:SYNTH?
    As the statistical data in the table is collected (1) in different ways (2) from different user bases (3) in different geographical regions, the resulting line is suspected to constitute improper synthesis.
  2. Does Median line violate WP:CALC?
    The median is known to be a statistical operation, and as such is supposed to need professional knowledge to properly apply regardless of the issues of question 1.
  3. Does Median line violate WP:OR?
    The contents of the line is not directly supported by the references.
  4. Do the tables in the aforementioned articles need summary?
    The tables' content is statistical data, which (without proper summary) is suspected to violate WP:NOTSTATSBOOK, WP:LINKFARM, WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOT PAPERS.
  5. Does the Median line constitute a summary or further statistical research on statistical data?
    The line was intended to be a summary of statistical data in the table, so that per WP:SYNTHNOT#SYNTH is not summary and WP:WIARM it would be excused:
    • from WP:OR as a summary supported by references to the summarised material;
    • from WP:CALC as a mere arithmetic operation, not statistical;
    • from WP:SYNTH as the least inaccurate method to summarise data.

What steps have you already taken to try and resolve the dispute?

What issues needs to be addressed to help resolve the dispute

The participants fail to reach WP:CONSENSUS. Effectively, the editors go in rounds with the same claims.

What can we do to help resolve this issue?

As uninvolved party, identify the reasons why the discussion stalls at the very beginning and help to initiate a process of reaching WP:CONSENSUS.

Mediator notes

There seems to be two separate issues here:

  1. Whether or not the "median" value gives a good representative figure, given apparently disparate datasets.
  2. Whether or not having it violates WP:SYN et al.

The second issue needs to be resolved before it's even worth considering the first, and treating it as two separate problems may make the discussion go more smoothly. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative notes

Discussion

I have moved the initial discussion to the talk page. Sorry for the rough-handed treatment, but the mediation page isn't meant for general discussion of the article - you can do that on the article talk page or the talk page here while we are trying to secure a mediator. Please bear with us while we are sorting things out. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Scjessey - Please see the comments of Richard Gill, a professor of mathematical statistics who has contributed his thoughts on the discussion page. Following his contribution, a consensus seems to be emerging to keep the median line. Even the original complainant said 'that settles it for me'. MedCab has not been asked to resolve any other issue and there's no reason to suppose that a consensus on other issues cannot be achieved by editors in the usual way.--Harumphy (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would involved parties please indicate below whether or not they think mediation is still required. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe so. Thenub314 (talk) 15:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mediation required. While Richard Gill has stated that he would consider median a simple and straightforward calculation (and thus in line with WP:CALC), it is still an inproper WP:SYN of multiple sources. Problem is compounded by the fact that a graph is created from the synthesis, a graph which is placed in public domain and may very well appear in publications where the proper warnings as to the sourcing will not be available. Useerup (talk) 16:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Required, though there are several newer issues. And I don't really know, what are the standings now. Personally I believe that median should be kept, several sources excluded, the graph should be removed and the due process regarding new statistical data inclusion should be agreed upon. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely required I believe doing medians is a very bad idea in Wikipedia. The use here is akin to the silliness in television poll of polls. It doesn't mean much and is fairly harmless in itself in these articles but it has no particular meaning. The job can be done as well or better without it. I see no point in having Wikipedia doing this sort of thing. We should just be summarizing what other people say. I have the opposite opinion about the graph to Czarkoff, I think it could be kept as basically like what's there without being verifiable, however there is a diagram that doesn't use the median that I think is better. Dmcq (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not required - New issues should be brought up on respective talk pages first. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There have been no edit wars on Usage share of web browsers that I'm aware of. Instead of assuming there is a problem, perhaps wannabe editors should just edit the page and see what happens. Currently the issue area is largely unedited and stale. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a wikipedia guide that says something like: if you are not willing to edit the page then you shouldn't be complaining? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's WP:SOFIXIT. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 22:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um, maybe I misunderstand Daniel.Cardenas, but I am of the opinion the medians should be removed. Several more active editors on that page have a different opinion, but simply being bold and asserting my own opinion I will most likely create needless drama, better to talk it out first if it is clear there is a problem. Thenub314 (talk) 03:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(shrugs). It was the first thing that came into my mind. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 04:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There were 7 people who indicated on the talk page that they accept the median and no one opposed the median. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 04:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I said a consensus seems to be emerging to keep the median line in the table. That is the only issue on which MedCab was asked for assistance, and I don't think it would be helpful to move the goalposts. We should try to reach consensus on the other issues in the usual way. In the past, editors of this article have always managed to, by treating each other with respect and a bit of give and take. IMHO we've only got a problem now because of one editor's unreasonable and disruptive behaviour.--Harumphy (talk) 09:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That was in a poll where the mediation was on hold and then it kept being added to whilst it was rolled up. I kept thinking to myself why can't these people stop editing it after it was rolled up my a mediator. Did anyone not read "the mediation page isn't meant for general discussion of the article - you can do that on the article talk page or the talk page"? This driven compulsion to keep this silly thing and defend it against all comers, it is just weird. Dmcq (talk) 13:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Plus if you inspect it you'll find that the proposer with a support is actually against the median if my reading is correct. Doesn't exactly indicate a very definitive and unambiguous result. Dmcq (talk) 13:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sense I am getting is that editors are not having any trouble communicating with each other, and things are more or less civil. The talk page does seem to indicate some sort of consensus for keeping the median, despite the fact that doing so has WP:SYN-related issues. Mediation is setup to help parties talk to each other and come to an agreement, but I'm getting a feeling that people are looking for some sort of ruling, which isn't going to happen. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of a 'ruling' from MedCab, what happens now? Clearly unanimity isn't likely, so presumably a majority viewpoint is the best we'll get. Or is something better available?--Harumphy (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the talk page for the article where an RfC was done the numbers on each side were the same. This was my worry about mediation that it couldn't provide a ruling. So what can it provide that the discussion of the talk page hasn't or what can be done next? Dmcq (talk) 16:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I never understood why we had to go here. We should wrap this up and refer it to the original research noticeboard, where it should have gone in the first place. Consider this a formal proposal to end cabal and go to OR noticeboardUseerup (talk) 16:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit. Every time you lose a round you try to move the goalposts. You started all this nonsense. You invited an expert for his opinion on the specific question about the median row. He gave that opinion: he completely disagreed with you on that question. You have wasted an enormous amount of other editors' time with your aggression, verbosity, intransigence and wikilawyering. Now you're trying to add forum shopping to the list. This is WP:disruptive editing. So pack this in right now, or I will make a formal complaint about your behaviour with a view to getting you banned.--Harumphy (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is definitely an area I can help you with. There is absolutely no reason for hostile comments like this. Whatever you may think of Useerup's approach, my impression is that Useerup is simply trying to exhaust every possible avenue to find a solution. That's appropriate behavior when you have a deadlocked discussion with no clear consensus. Please dial it back. As a mediator, it is not my job to give a "ruling" (my opinion carries no more or less weight than any other editor), but rather it is to help the two "sides" reach a consensus by suggesting ways of doing so. That being said, I have a useful rule I like to follow: If in doubt, leave it out. If you are unable to reach a consensus for including something in an article, then it should be excluded. The burden of demonstrating the value of an addition always falls upon those who wish to do the adding; therefore, if you can't agree on whether or not to include the median, it should not be included. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to comment that when the information was moved to the talk page before everyone (or at least before I could) !vote. I am opposed to the dea of keeping the median line. So I think summarizing it as an argument where most were supporting is a bit hasty. This is more or less a reiteration of a similar comment above, but I thought I would point out that I also had missed the vote. Thenub314 (talk) 23:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to point out that it was a compromise proposal in an attempt to seek a consensus; not a statement of agreement. I am still soundly against the median in the table, but I was willing to compromise on it, if that was what it would take to reach consensus. But that is water under the bridge by now: The proposal was rejected and we are back at our positions. As has been pointed out, this is not a civility issue (ahem), but a rather deep content policy dispute; one which could require the WP:NOR policy to be amended. I still feel that the Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard is the correct place for such a dispute. I also agree with Scjessey above that failing to reach consensus means that we should remove the median, not just because of a good rule of thumb (it is) but also because of 2 core content policies: WP:NOR/WP:CALC explicitly demands consensus for a calculation to be acceptable, regardless of what any individual editors may feel about previous consensus or "long standing practice". WP:VERIFY explicitly places the burden of evidence on editors seeking to add or restore material. I did in fact remove the median from the OS usage share, believing I was following WP:NOR guidelines and removing improper synthesis. It was added back by Harumphy. I did mark the median as WP:SYN - it was removed by Harumphy. I was threatened (like above) that if I removed the median again Harumphy would treat it as edit warring. I consider this debate a fair chance for the proponents to lift the burden of evidence. But as we are stuck I think we should take the Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard route. Useerup (talk) 00:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was opposed to the median line due to WP:NOR (I first brought this issue couple of years ago), even though I do find median useful and contributing to the article. But I also find this discussion being blown out of proportion - it went through talk page, voting, RfC, expert opinion, mediation cabal - the number of venues for disputes on Wikipedia seems to be infinite - what's next - US Supreme Court ? So in the interest of resolving the issue and moving forward, I am OK with leaving median in the article. There has been a concern from Richard about media starting to quote the median number - however this hasn't really happened in the years that median exists. Journalists seem to quote either Net Applications or StatCounter as primary sources. So while we could keep arguing on formalities, for the practical reasons I think it would be OK to leave median in.Wikiolap (talk) 16:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/13_November_2011/Usage_share_of_operating_systems&oldid=461955842"