05:2305:23, 1 April 2021diffhist−1,050
Analysis of variance
→Follow-up tests: Hinkelmann and Kempthorne don't seem to have a coherent criticism of pairwise MCPs in the cited source. They "caution against their uncritical use, but...feel that MCPs can play a useful role." That can be said about basically any procedure. Also, referring to Tukey's tests as "post hoc" is misleading since presumably they are typically planned a priori. There are many MCPs, so instead of providing unnecessary detail about a few arbitrary examples, let's be more general.Tag: references removed
16:0816:08, 26 March 2021diffhist−207
Analysis of variance
→Background and terminology: removed unecessary verbiage. No need to say ANOVA is a "statistical tool." That's already been made abundantly clear. And no need to repeatedly say that it has a lot of different uses. That's also been made abundantly clear.
16:0416:04, 26 March 2021diffhist−210
Analysis of variance
→Background and terminology: Not clear what the source for these claim is. Also they are dubious. For example, ANOVA is robust to assumption violations??? Only under certain circumstances. "Provides strong analysis?" What does that even mean?
16:0116:01, 26 March 2021diffhist−120
Analysis of variance
→Background and terminology: saying ANOVA is the most useful statistical technique that exists is mere opinion. It's also not clear what counts as a "statistical technique." For instance, is ANOVA more useful than estimation? Is it more useful than confidence intervals? Is the author considering t-tests as a form of ANOVA?
16:3716:37, 14 March 2021diffhist+25
Keith Raniere
→Early adulthood: The cited article doesn't say he was alleged to have raped Melita. The word "rape" has a specific meaning (forced intercourse), as does the word "allegedly" (according to accusation). Thus, saying he allegedly raped her means that he was accused of forced intercourse. That's not what the cited article says. The editor who repeatedly inserts the word "rape" where it doesn't belong is essentially vandalizing the article to promote a personal agenda. STOP IT.
08:4408:44, 23 January 2021diffhist−219
Analysis of variance
→Cautions: Not clear what that sentence was trying to say. When assumptions are met, conducting a single ANOVA omnibus test controls alpha because it's just a single test, so there effectively AREN'T multiple comparisons—even in a factorial design. If you do multiple ANOVAs, or if you do additional tests besides a single omnibus test, then you have a multiple comparisons problem—but that's true regardless of how many "dimensions" there are.
08:2908:29, 23 January 2021diffhist−49
P-value
→Definition and interpretation: It's true—in a sense—that alpha is "arbitrary." But that's a potentially misleading statement, since the word "arbitrary" is often used to mean "capriciously or randomly determined." In any case, the other language in the paragraph gets the point across sufficiently, so the problematic sentence wasn't necessary anyway.
16:3916:39, 22 January 2021diffhist0
Statistical hypothesis test
minor but important rephrase. we should be careful not to imply that statistical significance directly indicates the probability that the null hypothesis is true.
17:3417:34, 14 January 2021diffhist−606
P-value
→General: corrected p-value definition for two-sided test. Removed the unclear, unnecessary statements that are better shown through the formulas than explained in cryptic language.