## jon.kiparsky 326

That's an incorrect assumption

That's what I'm saying - the numbers in the Wikipedia article don't work, therefore some assumption they made is wrong. If you look just at the Wikipedia claim (800,000 members, of whom 20% contributed > 1 million posts) and fill in an upper boundary on the total number of posts (today's number, 1.45 million) then I'm saying those numbers don't work.

All I'm talking about here is the internal consistency of that claim - I don't know who's contributed what to DW, but I know that that quote doesn't make sense. So if you're also saying that the Wikipedia claim doesn't make sense, then I'm relieved, because it means my math is probably okay.

## VernonDozier 2,218

That's what I'm saying - the numbers in the Wikipedia article don't work, therefore some assumption they made is wrong. If you look just at the Wikipedia claim (800,000 members, of whom 20% contributed > 1 million posts) and fill in an upper boundary on the total number of posts (today's number, 1.45 million) then I'm saying those numbers don't work.

All I'm talking about here is the internal consistency of that claim - I don't know who's contributed what to DW, but I know that that quote doesn't make sense. So if you're also saying that the Wikipedia claim doesn't make sense, then I'm relieved, because it means my math is probably okay.

I'm not seeing any mathematical inconsistency, but I'm seeing extremely loose wording in Wikipedia, both in the numbers (over a million) plus a lack of explanation on the point that they're trying to make with that statistic. My reading is that, mathematically, there's no problem. 20% of the members either make ALL of the posts or they make the vast majority of the posts. The 80% remaining either have made NO posts or they've made an average of far fewer than one post each. You can't do much math on it because the total number of posts isn't given, and even if it was, how do you subtract "over a million" from that? All you can do is take today's number of posts, subtract a million, then divide the result by (80% times 800,000) and conclude that the average post count for the 80% was less than that number, which is less than 1. It would have been a better Wikipedia article if the author had done all that math for us and explained where the 20%, 80%, etc. came from.

The conclusion is that you have a whole bunch of members who have probably never made a single post.

## VernonDozier 2,218

>> So if you have 1.4 million posts, and 20% of them come from 1 million people, and only one person can contribute a particular post, what is the maximum possible membership? It's the number of which .4 million is 80%, or .5 million. So if the claimed membership is greater than .5 million, that statement can't be true.

I think you are assuming that in order to be a member, one must post at least once, which is incorrect. There is no maximum number of members. You could have a billion members and no posts.

## jon.kiparsky 326

You're right, that was a bad assumption. So I was right to say that one of {AD, me} was confused. 'Twas me.

## royng -3

CAn we trust wikipedia ?

## Nick Evan 4,005

>> CAn we trust wikipedia ?

No.

## nezachem 616

>> CAn we trust wikipedia ?
> No.

Can we trust DaniWeb? The top 100 posters (that's 0.1% of the population) contributed 365917 posts (that's 25% of the post count).
An estimated contribution of the next hundred is at least 100000.

PS: The statistics page gives the top hundred. Is there a way to go down the list, and see the second, third, etc pages?

## royng -3

>> CAn we trust wikipedia ?
> No.

Can we trust DaniWeb? The top 100 posters (that's 0.1% of the population) contributed 365917 posts (that's 25% of the post count).
An estimated contribution of the next hundred is at least 100000.

PS: The statistics page gives the top hundred. Is there a way to go down the list, and see the second, third, etc pages?

Is there a way two see the top three hundred.
About wikepedia we can't trust in only for some stories

## jon.kiparsky 326

About wikepedia we can't trust in only for some stories

You can trust anything you read on wikipedia as long as it's confirmed by two independent and reliable sources. Other than that, you're on dangerous ground.

## royng -3

Since wikepedia half the stories are half true half false what is the point of setting up it the first place?

## WaltP 2,905

>> CAn we trust wikipedia ?

No.

Can we trust the Encyclopedia Britannica?
http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-accurate-as-Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

At least with Wikipedia, errors can be/are corrected quickly -- much faster than EB can manage.

Since wikepedia half the stories are half true half false what is the point of setting up it the first place?

Prove your statistic... I don't believe it at all.

## jonsca 1,059

Can we trust the Encyclopedia Britannica?

I get suspicious when they refer to America as "that colony that temporarily got away."

Personally, I trust articles with lots of numbers in brackets that lead to what I would consider good sources. Since the claim on the Daniweb article doesn't come from anywhere, it's immediately suspect. It's meant to be user-created, but that doesn't imply people should make it a creative writing exercise.

## jon.kiparsky 326

Can you trust a single source? No. You can learn something about the domain of a field by reading an article about it, but you have to spend a lot more time before you can make any sense of what you find.

Anyone who reads an article in the Britannica or on Wikipedia and then considers that they know something is an idiot and shouldn't be allowed to walk around loose. That's a starting point, not an end. (and if you think I'm railing against wikipedia, I'm paraphrasing Jimmy Wales here - he didn't really use the word "idiot")

## royng -3

Can we trust the Encyclopedia Britannica?
http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-accurate-as-Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

At least with Wikipedia, errors can be/are corrected quickly -- much faster than EB can manage.

Prove your statistic... I don't believe it at all.

The statistic are just raft numbers that i think up off. Not necessary true

commented: If "Not necessary true" it should not have been said. +0

## susheelsundar

Believe it or not, Don't blame it on the hub where you post in, blame it on the members, many members join these forums only when they got queries, when their problem is solved, they do not even remember the forum. and some "Quality" people who contribute knowledge to others, and they stand. Tall.

## VernonDozier 2,218

>> The statistic are just raft numbers that i think up off. Not necessary true

How exactly are the rest of us to know which of your posts reflect honest opinions worth contemplating and which are just you posting random nonsense that you don't believe is true? If you would like to be taken seriously, you can't post "raft numbers that you think up".

## royng -3

>> The statistic are just raft numbers that i think up off. Not necessary true

How exactly are the rest of us to know which of your posts reflect honest opinions worth contemplating and which are just you posting random nonsense that you don't believe is true? If you would like to be taken seriously, you can't post "raft numbers that you think up".

CAN use a bit of common sense. To i have ro be exact in everything, about the statistics how do we know the actual one? Someone will always have different opinion about the statistics, i can post 50% true the next time some other posters will disagree and say 51% true

## VernonDozier 2,218

CAN use a bit of common sense. To i have ro be exact in everything, about the statistics how do we know the actual one? Someone will always have different opinion about the statistics, i can post 50% true the next time some other posters will disagree and say 51% true

There's a difference being inexact and just pulling numbers out of thin air. No one's going to quibble over the difference between 50% or 51% or even get upset with you for posting a number that you THINK is accurate, but isn't. The problem is that you simply decided to make up a number, pretended to believe it was true, but you in fact did not believe it was true, as you now freely admit. That's dishonest and wastes peoples' time.

## WaltP 2,905

CAN use a bit of common sense.

Yes you may. And common sense dictates you don't lie if you want people to trust you.

To i have ro be exact in everything, about the statistics how do we know the actual one?

Research. I did, and posted a link that shows it. Therefore, I can be trusted.

Someone will always have different opinion about the statistics, i can post 50% true the next time some other posters will disagree and say 51% true

Opinions about statistics are worthless when the true statistical values can be proven. So keep your opinions to yourself and try GOOGLE to get facts. Then post the facts instead.

## royng -3

Some posters that post in this thread have already described that some of wikipedia stories can't be trusted

## happygeek 2,346

Wikipedia is not the only fruit on the information tree...

## royng -3

I know that but wikipedia seems more popular

## jon.kiparsky 326

Sir, you are not coming up with arguments that move me on this one.

commented: :-) +0

## royng -3

Sir, you are not coming up with arguments that move me on this one.

Who are you referring to?

## jon.kiparsky 326

I'm referring to the fact that you seem to be trying to make a case of some sort, but I don't even know what you're arguing for or against.

## royng -3

Oh, i see. Thanks for the advice. I am arguing that whether we can trust wikipedia and how much stories can be trusted.

## ~s.o.s~ 2,560

I am arguing that whether we can trust wikipedia and how much stories can be trusted.

... and this certainly isn't the right thread for the discussion. A bit of off-topic chat is never frowned upon but this thread has gone *way* too off-topic.

## pyTony 888

facts are easily found by looking through suitable newbies data correct position in statistics page as I have reacently posted to Community feedback forum. To restate from todays data: 9181 have posted in thread of others which have been marked solved. 54521 have posted more than two times.

## jon.kiparsky 326

facts are easily found by looking through suitable newbies data correct position in statistics page as I have reacently posted to Community feedback forum. To restate from todays data: 9181 have posted in thread of others which have been marked solved. 54521 have posted more than two times.

So about 1% of Daniweb users attempt to solve problems, and about 95% are one-shot posters (if they even post once). Well, that's worth knowing. Can we get that added as a footnote to the tally of memberships created?

## diafol

Well, nice stat to have on your page maybe but doesn't mean anything. In fact it's a lie, isn't it? 900K members? Lifetime membership shouldn't really count. A more interesting stat would be how many users have registered, logged in or posted or been active etc. over the last month. Quality posts regardless. You're always gonna get nonsense. Clean it up as best you can. No point getting anal over it.