Wikiafripedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

From Wikiafripedia, the free encyclopedia that you can monetize your contributions or browse at zero-rating.
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikiafripedia. You are not required to participate. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button Button rediriger.png to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikiafripedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. "Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikiafripedia page. This may also apply to some groups.

Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.
Do you need assistance? Would you like to help?

If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible.

  • This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion.
  • We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves.
  • The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN.
  • Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice.
If you need help:

If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.

  • This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy.
  • For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.

We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over this page to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikiafripedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input.

Volunteers should remember:
  • Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants.
  • Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikiafripedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute.
  • Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information) and the bot will archive it soon after.
Open/close quick reference
  • To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}}
  • To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit.
Case Created Last volunteer edit Last modified
Title Status User Time User Time User Time
Akaike information criterion New Bender235 (t) 828 days, 18 hours Robert McClenon (t) 826 days, 16 hours Robert McClenon (t) 826 days, 16 hours
Shahrbanu New Example (t) Unknown Robert McClenon (t) 812 days, 17 hours Robert McClenon (t) 812 days, 17 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by DRN clerk bot (talk) at 21:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Current disputes[edit source | edit]

Akaike information criterion[edit source | edit]

Symbol wait old.png – New discussion.
Filed by Bender235 on 20:01, 19 October 2019 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

For a month now, there has been a content dispute between BetterMath and myself, about how to define a particular statistic called the Akaike information criterion (AIC) in a precise and intuitive way in the article's opening sentence. As of right now, the article describes the AIC as "an estimator of the relative quality of statistical models," which in my opinion is unnecessarily vague because "quality of a model" is so intangible that it is not even wrong. To give an analogy, it is a little bit like calling the Human Development Index (HDI) "an estimator of the relative quality of a country." Obviously the current lead of HDI describes it more precisely as a "composite index of life expectancy, education, and per capita income indicators," simply because this is what the HDI actually measures, i.e. the proxies of economic development. Similarly, the AIC approximates the "quality of a model" from prediction (or forecasting) error. The closer on target, the better the model. Because this is what AIC measures, I wanted to amend the current opening sentence with five words to " estimator of out-of-sample prediction error and thereby the relative quality...", but BetterMath objected.

My contribution is supported by two reliable sources that confirm the proposed definition nearly verbatim. BetterMath has brushed them aside, claiming them to be "undergraduate textbooks" (which in fact neither of them is) that contained "errors." Trying to point out those errors, BetterMath demonstrated a stunning lack of understanding of basic statistical concepts, like the difference between "in-sample" and "out-of-sample" statistics, which (after a month of good-faith discussion) makes me seriously doubt his ability to accurately judge the subject at hand. This content dispute is in dire need of a third opinion.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?


How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Ideally, somebody with sufficient knowledge in statistics could settle the issue by deciding whether the proposed definition is correct or not. But apart from that, generally any third person could look at this content dispute and decide on whose side the "burden of proof" now falls. In addition to the two sources referenced in the article, I have presented three more on the article talk page, whereas BetterMath has yet to produce a single source that contradicts any of the once listed.

Summary of dispute by BetterMath[edit source | edit]

For anyone involved in this dispute, it would be helpful to have some understanding of statistical models. An informal introduction is enough, and is given by Statistical model#Introduction. (Perhaps read that before reading the following.)

Assume that we have some data. Suppose that we also have several statistical models of the data. Some of those models will be better than others for modeling the data. We want to select the model that is in some sense the best model for the data. AIC provides a method for selecting. (It is based on information theory.)

Once we have selected a model, we can use the model to make predictions (also called forecasts). Predictions will rarely be perfect; rather, they will usually have some error.

Suppose that the data points are statistically independent. Then, it can be shown that AIC has a nice property: AIC selects the model that has the minimal expected error when making predictions.

The main issue on which Bender235 and I are in dispute is the following.

If the data points are not independent, then in general, we do not know what properties the prediction errors have. Bender235, however, does not accept that; instead, Bender235 claims that every model selected via AIC has the above-noted nice property. I have explained the issue in detail, and provided several reliable sources. All to only little effect.

In addition to the above issue, Bender235 has claimed that using the term quality of a model in the lead of the article is “unnecessarily vague”. The term is defined informally in the lead (second paragraph). A more formal definition is in the first section of the article: Akaike information criterion#Definition. That definition is somewhat technical (relying on the Kullback–Leibler divergence). I believe that the current approach, giving an informal definition in the lead, well adheres to WAP:Lead#Provide an accessible overview.

BetterMath (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Akaike information criterion discussion[edit source | edit]

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

@BetterMath: I feel like this dispute can actually resolved very easily: in a situation with statistically dependent observations, imagine we have two competing models, and we calculate AIC for each of them. The one with lower AIC is the "better" one, but better in what sense? What does it do better than the other model? The answer is either (a) the "better" model predicts better, i.e. with less error, or (b) we don't know, because AIC is not applicable here, so whatever value it has is irrelevant and it cannot be used for model selection. Which one is it? --bender235 (talk) 20:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Shahrbanu[edit source | edit]

Symbol wait old.png – New discussion.
Filed by LissanX on 23:07, 3 November 2019 .

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, though only one user, Kansas Bear (talk · contribs), has commented.

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Some users have been wiping content to enforce a one-sided non-neutral view. This line, complete with multiple sources, is consistently removed:

The date of reports, however, coincide with the golden age of Hadith compilations, with the Shia Four Books and Sunni Six Books all being released around the 9th century, as written Islamic reports were sparse prior to this period.

From this paragraph:

Islamic writers, such as al-Mubarrad, Ya'qubi and al-Kulayni, wrote the earliest reports of Shahrbanu and her imperial Persian background from the 9th century onward. However, the earliest sources make no mention of the mother of Ali ibn Husayn, nor do they ascribe him with maternal royal ancestry. The first references were from Ibn Sa'd and Ibn Qutaybah, also in the 9th century, who instead describe her as being a slave from Sindh. The Encyclopædia Iranica alleges that Shahrbanu was "undeniably legendary".

It was removed twice (1 and 2) for two completely different purported reasons. It’s clear that these revisions are simply to censor the fact that the 9th century Islamic texts are credible and are not necessarily unreliable as the mutilated version of the paragraph suggests.

The content of the added content is thoroughly corroborated by the relevant facts, such as the following dates of the Hadith compilations referenced:

The Six Books:

The Four Books:

And the fact that the earliest known Hadith compilations were Kitab Sulaym ibn Qays by Sulaym ibn Qays (died c. 689-709) for Shias and Sahifah Hammam ibn Munabbih by Hammam ibn Munabbih (died 719 CE) for Sunnis.

These facts were substantiated by comprehensive citations.

In addition to this, the translation of name of the person whom the article is about is also arbitrarily reverted each time.

Attempts to take personal control of the article has meant that they are not even willing to tolerate one line on the same paragraph, not even a simple name translation.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?



How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I would like for the content to be allowed for fair and neutral content to be displayed in the article. To have multiple claims of the unreliability of 9th century texts be presented, while removing one line saying that 9th century texts are also considered credible to provide a complete, appropriate outlook, is disruptive editing. — LissanX (talk) 23:07, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not yet notified the other two editors of this filing. Please do not refer to a content dispute about the reliability of sources as censorship. Please read Yelling Censorship, and wait for a volunteer to facilitate a discussion of the reliability of sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)