Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
This suggests that the accuracy of Wikipedia is high. However, the results should not be seen as support for Wikipedia as a totally reliable resource as, according to the experts, 13 percent of the articles contain mistakes (10% of the experts reported factual errors of an unspecified degree, 3% of them reported spelling errors)." [89]
Accuracy is also used as a statistical measure of how well a binary classification test correctly identifies or excludes a condition. That is, the accuracy is the proportion of correct predictions (both true positives and true negatives) among the total number of cases examined. [10] As such, it compares estimates of pre- and post-test probability.
A famous example of verifiable material that is potentially inaccurate is the front page of the Chicago Tribune on November 3, 1948—we have an article about this headline at "Dewey defeats Truman". In this case, we have a retraction from the newspaper which provides strong evidence that the material was inaccurate.
So Wikipedia:Verifiability is a major help towards the accuracy goal, but does not alone guarantee it. Re-wording with attribution is a way to convert an inaccurate or subjective statement to an accurate one. For example: "The US never landed on the moon" is inaccurate, "John Smith said that the US never landed on the moon." could be accurate.
This statistics -related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
Let L = the lower limit for accuracy and U = upper limit for accuracy. Then H 0 L ≤ D ≤ U. versus H 1 D < L or D > U. is to be tested. The operating characteristic (OC) curve is the probability that the null hypothesis is accepted when it is true. The OC curve characterizes the probabilities of both type I and II errors.
A type II error, or a false negative, is the erroneous failure in bringing about appropriate rejection of a false null hypothesis. [1] Type I errors can be thought of as errors of commission, in which the status quo is erroneously rejected in favour of new, misleading information. Type II errors can be thought of as errors of omission, in which ...
The 42-entry sample included science articles and biographies of scientists, which were compared for accuracy by anonymous academic reviewers; they found that the average Wikipedia entry contained four errors and omissions, while the average Encyclopædia Britannica entry contained three errors and omissions.