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

1254:(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 Knowledge 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. 2787:. It is not an email reply, others may like to contribute. I am quite competent in statistics thank you but one doesn't need that to see that taking three figures 5.01 3.72 and 4.73 from different sources using different methods and measuring different things and outputting just 4.7 and putting that out as a single figure because you chose some fairly arbitrary average is just wrong for Knowledge. It is obvious original research. If newspapers do this sort of silliness that is their business and we can report the figure then but we should not do it. You're basically saying our readers are too stupid to seewhat's in Useerup's graphic and need to be spoonfed with some pap which is made up by the editors here rather than anything we can cite. Made up by the editor's here is not what Knowledge is about. 2961:, I agree that we should not put more weight on his opinions when it comes to WP policies. Richard Gill confirmed what I held the whole time: The median cannot be usefully thought of as a median of a population (the usage share of a browser or operating system), because the numbers have not been sampled from a population in any useful way. He also offered his opinion that calculating the median over a table is straightforward and that readers may want to see that. This is where I now disagree: Yes, it may be straightforward, but 2310:

archived to the talk page, to the extent that the discussion has to be forcibly stopped (through page protection) is unacceptable. MedCab is not a place to fight, bicker or soapbox. Conduct here should be collaborative and with an environment of good faith and mutual respect. All of the parties here need to clean up their act, and have some patience. I'm going to keep a close eye on this case, but for the time being, how about coming up with a middle ground proposal that satisfies all of you. Regards,

703:@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.-- 2004:

it is, I do not find it excessive or hard to read. But, if others disagree, we could always eliminate rows from the table. We cannot, and should not include data from every organization that generates such information, so if we get to the point that the table is unwieldy, we should be more judicious about what we include. We can always cite and provide links to the other sources that we are aware of.

3224:

a square and measures all those within the square then you get a load of different estimates. Treating them all as of equal worth or even as comparable in some way is wrong. There's the problems of which one actually tries to give you what you actually want and how well the studies were done. All the median would give you is the median of the values. It wouldn't actually have any meaning beyond that.

42: 658: 2508:, but it is not really comparable between medians. This is illustrated by the fact that the sum of the medians does not come to 100% (and may indeed total to a lot more than 100%). Thus, to think of the median as "the share" of something is useless as we cannot define what that "something" is. The best bet is that the "something" is the sum of all medians. 3185:. Yes, it is being hided. If the numbers were comparable a pie chart would be the natural way to illustrate "parts of a whole". Alternatively normalized horizontal bars. For both graph types it is common to label each component with the calculated percentage of the whole. Only in this case what is being plotted are already percentages, but 3152:. Consequently when you line up percentages you expect that they are part of the same "whole" - that's what make them comparable. Only these median percentages are not comparable because they are taken from different wholes. The problem that they don't add up or even greatly exceed 100% is an illustration of this. A reader 797:

having Knowledge 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.

3223:

If you are measuring the lengths of mammals and one person measures all those going through a wide opening using a camera however many times they do it and another leaves out the babies and a third counts those that arecaught in traps and therefore excludes duplicates and a fourth carefully marks out

1120:

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

879:

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

3354:

That was weird, but since Dmitrij has effectively excused himself from the article I don't feel bad about closing this mediation. If anyone thinks that mediation would be useful at a later date, please feel free to open a new case. For my part, I need to take a Wikibreak until February so this works

2895:

As a reminder not all professors involved in this conversation agree. Also, we have no real way of verifying identity, we should not be too swayed by credentials users claim to hold. Finally even the best professors in the world may not be familiar wikipedia policy. So lets instead focus on issues

942:

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

3028:

And as I said it is the sort of stuff newspapers do and it is fairly harmless silliness in that context. I also agree with what he said " On the other hand, I prefer Useerup's own graphic representation of the whole table, which gives simultaneously an overall impression of general tendency as well

3018:

As Richard Gill says. "The numbers in question can't be usefully thought of as a sample from some population, so their median can't be thought of as an estimate of the median of the population, but so what? The median is very simply calculated and one can imagine that many readers would like to see

2956:

I was the one who solicited assistance from Richard Gill. I found him on the statistics project page, and I have *no* reason to believe that he is not who we says he is. And from the discussions he engages in - especially on the talk page - I'd say that he seems pretty knowledgeable on the subject.

2429:

I'll send an email around and see if anyone can assist here. If I hear nothing in the next few days I'll take it on myself (even though my case load is rather large at present). As for fighting/bickering, I see it above, indeed in this section. Calling each others edits vandalism, talking past each

2003:

This convesation always evolves more rapidly then I can keep up with. Firstly, I hope everyone who lives in a place where they celebrate thanksgiving had a very nice holiday. For the rest of you I hope you had a nice day. Now, in response to the experiment. I actually think the table is fine as

3034:

And as I said in the bit where Daniel.Cardenas keeps on calling on me to respond about some great difference "The big difference is even if I think the original graphic could just squeak in I don't think the median should be in a place which is reserved for verifiable text." I thought I was pretty

2858:

doesn't say anything particularly different from me about the median. I've said before that it hasn't much actual sense here but as a basis for a graphic I wasn't against it because graphics just need to look like the stuff. Plus I think Useerup's graphic is better just like Richard Gill does. The

2445:

I apologize for not being around much at the moment. This is a long holiday weekend in the USA (Thanksgiving) so I have family obligations keeping me from spending as much time here as I'd like. While it makes sense intellectually to talk about a "middle ground" position, I find it hard to imagine

1064:

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

927:

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,

796:

I believe doing medians is a very bad idea in Knowledge. 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

1916:

I do not agree that common sense points the way you think. I do not believe the article would be harmed by removing the median. I think people can look at the individual lines quite easily and don't need some random summary by some Knowledge editor, and besides which that will show the variation

1090:

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

2986:. In essense the graph is lying: It conveys the impression that the bars can be compared. While the errors may not be that significant the entire idea is wrong. And anyway, the entire thought process with a number of decisions on part of the editors (and not the sources) lands this squarely in 2309:

I concur with the observations of mediator Scjessey. It is clear there is no consensus here, which in this case defaults to the content being removed. Discussion here has become unproductive, and edit warring is unacceptable. I also note the continuation of a straw poll when said poll has been

1391:

I am not sure about WP:CALC, I am mostly willing to leave it because, in my opinion using the median is always a case of OR. One must choosing a measure to summarize by, and out of the many possibilities of measuring the center of some distribution the median is arbitrarily picked. If we the

3039:

afterwards "In any encyclopedia, information cannot be included solely for being true or useful." Richard Gill says it does service. Policy says being useful is not an overriding consideration. We should not sacrifice verifiabily for usefulness. Personally I would do such a sacrifice in some

777:, 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. — 690:. 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 — 2364:. I welcome any help in bringing this forward, but I think we have the right to expect that you familiarize yourself with the debate before making sweeping comments about "fight, bicker or soapbox". Yes, the debate was running in circles, but I have a hard time identifying 2653:

CALC isn't about whether the calculation is simple but whether it is an obvious and straightforward calculation. There is nothing saying add has simplicity 1, multiply has simplicity 3 etc. That is not what it means. I can add 1 raven and 1 writing desk and get 2, but of

2583:

1024:

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?

2801:

It strikes me that part of the problem here is a conflict between points of view about what Knowledge is. I see it as tryig to be a reliable encyclopaedia which one tries to make readable and useful. The other point here is emphasising useful much more. May I quote

1420:

Everybody knows, that making any calculation in Knowledge involves a possibility to participate in a long run drama like this one, so any calculation (including this median) is done only when there's no other possibility. You just get the idea of Knowledge policies

2969:. Yes readers may want to see a single summarized number but I'm not so sure that the readers understand that each median is "just" the median of the sources. It is simply too easy to mistake it for a number indicating the median usage share of the browser/OS 687: 3244:

I plan on polling again to see if we have reached consensus. I believe with a new summary of the issue(s) and new expert opinion the outcome will be different. I'm going to request the polling be done on a more usual page which is the talk page for

1977:. This content policy exists to keep Knowledge encyclopedic. This is at the very heart of WP. While no rules should be considered as absolute or final, ] does not yield to editors' concern that it may "harm the article" if removed. Original research 986:

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

1576:

It's very nice of You to give us content-related recommendations. Could You also be so kind to suggest a possible alternative approach to the median You recommended to remove? Or should we leave the readers puzzled with table of statistical data? —

1392:

editors are making the choice, that is a clear sign of OR (at least IMO). No one supporting its use has answered the question why not use the Geometric mean instead? (This is an an example of a measure that I hope seems ridiculous to all involved.)

1144:

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

759:

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.

2679:

The sources quote .01% accuracy and the summary is rounded to .1% accuracy. The .1% is helpful for something that has 1.5% market share. For consistency round everything to .1% rather than 1%, which would be better for something with 35% market

3162:. You may believe that it is a good approximation. I think it is rather poor. And anyway - WP should not create synthesis and original research - which an "approximation" is. Just by deciding that a median should be used instead of, say, the 2977:

the now incomparable numbers. It is unfathomable how one can realize that the numbers don't add up (to 100%), and instead of stepping back as questioning "may that be because we are mangling them in ways we shouldn't", the editors elected to

2327:

Well, we have not seen a lot of mediation here. We did not see a lot of mediation before being referred here. But then again, the debate has been mostly civil, so there was never much need for mediation. The problem has always been one of

3193:

usage share is 46% - but that median share is only 42% of the sum of all median usage shares for all browsers. I don't really care that you consider it "well known fact that the median of a set of shares may not add up to 100%". It's an

1040:

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

1376:

Well I think that is obvious but will we now be seeing more medians around the place on whatever editors want or are they deprecated except where applied where obviously ok or not at all or what? What is the status of CALC?

1505:

There was an attempt that should be finished before closing this discussion. We started voting on Your proposal, but there was no enough participants. I'm nearly sure that after some thinking this proposal would be agreed

2687:

Knowing something is wrong doesn't mean it is okay to just fudge round it. The calculation used here is easily capable of giving a result percentage as a fraction of the whole which is outside of the range of any of the

2590:

3166:

a decision on the original sources has been made and we have entered statistical analysis. Why not mean and standard deviation? Why not min/max? Just by deciding to "approximate" you have already entered the field

3054:

I have to say that I agree fully with this. I just don't see the value of the median given the propensity for misunderstanding weighed against it what convenience it may be to some readers. There is a reason for

3108:

Don't agree anyone is hiding anything. If you want to put a note on the bar chart saying that numbers don't add up to 100% go ahead. Its a well known fact that the median of a set of shares may not add up to

928:

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.--

299:

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.

2820:

There is no wikipedia policy against using someone's incorrect assertion about the use of simple strait forward statistics. And let me remind yet again that a professor of statistics disagrees with you.

2756:

In summary it seems some people want to replace a very simple median with a relatively complicated graphic that most people won't bother to try to figure out what information the graphic is conveying.

1651:

And You really know that the main problems with this median line is the problem of misrepresentation of data in this table. That is the issue to be addressed, instead of effectively blanking the useful

1439:@Dmcq. I stand corrected then, I wasn't aware of any usage, but I am happy to take your word for it. But my point about OR stands even if my hypothetical example to illustrate doesn't quite work. 2501:

The sources have different bias and they do not sample the same population. Thus, median of sources cannot be usefully thought of as a median of the population (professional statistical concern)

957:

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.

832:

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.

3121:

Can add a disclaimer that the median is the central tendency of the population of reporting sources, which is a good approximation of actual usage share across different ways of measuring.

3326:

Since I was shown perfectly clear that no one cares my position, I'm not going to participate in any further debate over the article, including this mediation process. Act as You like. —

2941:

And perhaps he will. My my comment really comes before that. When you said "... a professor of statistics disagrees with you ..." you brought Prof. Gill and appealed to his credentials.

1099:. 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 1793:

You missed my point. We can't include numerical summary as it is too complex for normal mortals, but leaving them summarise themselves is supposed to be not. It is self-contradictory. —

1010:

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?--

2672:

The results imly accuracy not implicit in the sources. The graphic by Useerup shows the variiation. Whats there has 0.1% type figures in which ae totally unwarranted by the sources.

2625:

Calculation with disparate data is not very meaningful. This is like getting the median height of mammals and saying there you are, a median height for mammals. Not very meaningful.

2587:

The results imly accuracy not implicit in the sources. The graphic by Useerup shows the variiation. Whats there has 0.1% type figures in which ae totally unwarranted by the sources.

2577:

Calculation with disparate data is not very meaningful. This is like getting the median height of mammals and saying there you are, a median height for mammals. Not very meaningful.

1091:

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:

3059:

and that is to keep this sort of things out. My stance on this have actually hardened a bit after discovering that other articles quote the median out of context, quoting it is

1509:

P.S.: I don't think it's a good idea to bring dispute to the place where everybody assumes the violation. That doesn't look like dispute resolution. I would prefer arbitration.

1860:. We do not need to come up with proposals for alternatives (although we have done so). We do not need an agreement on an alternative before removing the median calculation. 191: 2716:

And overall there is no need for this and the article and I believe the article would be better without the median and current graphic and using Useerup's graphic instead.

2597:

And overall there is no need for this and the article and I believe the article would be better without the median and current graphic and using Useerup's graphic instead.

2639:

There is no good reason for choosing the median compared to the mode or mean or geometric mean or various weighted means. It is a random choice by some Knowledge editors.

2580:

There is no good reason for choosing the median compared to the mode or mean or geometric mean or various weighted means. It is a random choice by some Knowledge editors.

2730:

I see no reason for us to be generating our own result from other people's results. It looks like poll of polls and is best left to television programms about elections.

2600:

I see no reason for us to be generating our own result from other people's results. It looks like poll of polls and is best left to television programms about elections.

1528:

I'd prefer a mediator came to any such conclusion. Why do you want to end this so soon? What are you hoping to achieve? It isn't as though it is a short term problem.

1231:

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

2409:.1s of a percent in the median and graphic from that data. Very impressive but totally unjustified. I think this shows one of my reasons for preferring your diagram. 1546:

Mediation is still your best bet for help. Arbitration is really for content disputes that have disintegrated into user conduct disputes, and I'd be willing to bet

991:-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 943:- 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. 2859:

big difference is even if I think the original graphic could just squek in I don't think the median should be in a place which is reserved for verifiable text.

910: 1297:, out of date at that. No caveats that median data is calculated by WP editors on basis of sources selected by WP editors. The actual "median percentage" with 1184:

demands consensus for a calculation to be acceptable, regardless of what any individual editors may feel about previous consensus or "long standing practice".

482:

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. --

2876:"... I see nothing terribly wrong in giving the median of a collection of numbers as a simple (easily understood) summary statistic of central location. ..." 1684:

That table seems fine to me. And you can always use that graphic with all of them in that I believe Useerup provided. Less work and more informative I think.

1595:

to make up for deficiencies of the sources. Your premise is invalid; you cannot argue that the median is necessary because you can see no alternatives. What

3040:

circumstances but they would have to be far far more compelling than this where the tables are fine on their own and there is a better alternative graphic.

3035:

clear and can't see much room for misunderstanding there. What I'm saying there is a matter of Knowledge policy rather than statistics. As I go on to quote

2632:

Don't know why you say that. This is like wanting to know the median height of mammals and taking the median height of reported medium heights of mammals.

3364: 3349: 3335: 3319: 3305: 3291: 3273: 3258: 3233: 3214: 3133: 3072: 3049: 3011: 2950: 2919: 2905: 2890: 2868: 2830: 2815: 2796: 2766: 2751: 2614: 2566: 2528: 2474: 2455: 2440: 2418: 2400: 2381: 2320: 2303: 2286: 2270: 2252: 2222: 2203: 2172: 2158: 2141: 2127: 2109: 2090: 2013: 1990: 1964: 1926: 1895: 1869: 1831: 1817: 1802: 1777: 1743: 1693: 1663: 1624: 1586: 1563: 1537: 1521: 1499: 1466: 1448: 1434: 1415: 1401: 1386: 1370: 1350: 1263: 1244: 1130: 1112: 1078: 1050: 1034: 1019: 1004: 966: 952: 937: 922: 904: 889: 874: 855: 841: 823: 806: 786: 769: 741: 727: 712: 698: 637: 619: 571: 547: 526: 491: 2806:

about content "In any encyclopedia, information cannot be included solely for being true or useful." Useful is not an overriding aim for ignoring rules.

1232: 1154: 1086:

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,

552:

Please note that this mediation has been put on administrative hold while waiting for an experienced mediator to volunteer to co-mediate the case with

2465:

There are several comments about the median being meaningless which I don't understand. The median is the central tendency of the reporting sources.

2356:

discussion again - it was closed just when a proprosal had been put forward (by me) and before all participants had a chance to comment. There was no

1550:

would reject any case brought forward on this issue. There's no "time limit" on working this out, but I do strongly recommend that the median data is

319:

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

424: 1140:

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

3019:

it, so adding it to the table does those readers a service." That was pretty my reasons for thinking that perhaps the graphic would be okay under

604:. At this point he has done neither and the "hold" status is, in effect, a return to "New" or, in plain terms, unaccepted status. Best regards, 3387: 2261:

I won't let You remove it until there'll be consensus on what to do next. You don't care for content, while there are many of those who do. —

418: 181: 176: 3201:

by other WP articles (and who know which other publications). The disclaimers do not follow. This is the very reason why WP does not allow

2498:

only routine calculations are permitted and only if there is consensus that it is indeed routine and that it is applicable (policy concern)

2998:

which it is not. It will be quoted by others (already happened) without the table. The medians are not useful to readers at all because

2910:

DMCQ said that Richard Gill doesn't say anything particular different then him, so DMCQ should answer the question for clarification.

2118:"Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." 448:

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

2191: 1308: 589: 274: 846:

Is there a wikipedia guide that says something like: if you are not willing to edit the page then you shouldn't be complaining?

1314: 647: 21: 751:. While Richard Gill has stated that he would consider median a simple and straightforward calculation (and thus in line with 2646:

The good reason is that is what authors agreed would help the article. Absurd that the "mode" would be helpful or as useful.

1822:

I would propose an experiment. Let's start with You coming up with something a bit better. Feel free to share Your wisdom. —

601: 1768:

The median is really simple and yet the table and graphic are too complex for normal mortals? Come on you're just reaching.

3189:. Don't you think that a reader would pause when she saw that Internet Explorer has a 46% (42%) usage share (that is, it's 3023:"Consequently, images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, even if they are not provably authentic images." 1844:; if the median is SYN and/or OR (it is both) it has to be removed, unconditionally. Your refusal of alternate proposals 1808:

The median is meaningless as a summary. Hopefully if we leave it to them they will come up with something a bit better.

1069:. So pack this in right now, or I will make a formal complaint about your behaviour with a view to getting you banned.-- 1066: 3246: 2187: 1294: 1284: 829: 537:

Just so you all know, I'm keeping an eye on this case but encourage you all to keep discussion concise when possible.

278: 1280: 3345: 3301: 3254: 3129: 2915: 2886: 2826: 2762: 2562: 2470: 918: 851: 837: 819: 667: 243: 192:

Knowledge:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 12#Usage share of operating systems, Usage share of web browsers

123: 33: 17: 2511:

The medians are being quoted by other WP articles which have lost the table, thus compounding the problem with

1422: 1169:

means that we should remove the median, not just because of a good rule of thumb (it is) but also because of 2

613: 585: 565: 553: 513:, rendering the median calculation essentially meaningless/misleading. A median calculation would certainly be 2957:

Your point about WP policies stands, though. While I think we should pay close attention to what he says as a

3264:

Please go ahead. I don't really think we need this mediation, so maybe we can close it up here? Mediator? --

1648:

these two tables do really give useful information. The rest of the article is just outdated weasel wording.

2437: 2317: 2239:

content; rather it can be used to AfD an article. This content is in dispute, and per the above it should

2232: 2210: 2097: 1952: 901: 871: 544: 464:

Whether or not the "median" value gives a good representative figure, given apparently disparate datasets.

348: 2283: 1714:

This really exhausted me. How the hell can it be that any kind of numerical summary doesn't qualify for

692: 3249:. Outside opinion will be solicited as was done before. Feel free to start the process if you'd like. 3179:

are not statistical analysis and there are not two or more alternative ways to calculate a persons age.

718:

Would involved parties please indicate below whether or not they think mediation is still required. --

3296:

Useerup: I still think you should respond to the questions and points made above in previous section.

425:

Knowledge:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Usage share of operating systems, Usage share of web browsers

3341: 3297: 3282:

Since Dmitrij D. Czarkoff opened this case, I'd like to see agreement from him before closing it. --

3250: 3125: 3092:

It is simply too easy to mistake it for a number indicating the median usage share of the browser/OS

2911: 2882: 2822: 2758: 2661:

You can try to obscure the topic but it has been covered many times by others as useful and simple.

2558: 2466: 1722:

says that calculation is improper if it can't be reproduced by user. It effectively mean that if the

914: 847: 833: 815: 664: 584:

for a clarification of the current "hold" status. The mediator who initially accepted the mediation,

360: 258: 135: 2946: 2901: 2702:

There is just no concern under the no long lists of figures injunction. The tables are quite small.

2594:

There is just no concern under the no long lists of figures injunction. The tables are quite small.

2115: 2009: 1813: 1444: 1397: 1126: 885: 737: 625: 605: 557: 449: 437: 145: 2723:

An additional graphic is welcome. I believe it is more complicated than the average reader wants.

2213:

as no consensus exists either that the table can be left without summary nor about the summary. —

3360: 3331: 3287: 2973:. In fact, it is so easy to do this that the editors themselves have done it and created a graph 2451: 2299: 2266: 2218: 2168: 2137: 2114:

It is not long and sprawling. Please avoid using the vandalism term in situations like this, see

2105: 1960: 1891: 1827: 1798: 1739: 1659: 1582: 1559: 1517: 1430: 1259: 1108: 1074: 1015: 1000: 933: 782: 723: 708: 633: 581: 522: 487: 376: 352: 186: 177:

Talk:Usage share of operating systems#Median constitutes improper synthesis and original research

80: 1095:

If you are unable to reach a consensus for including something in an article, then it should be

419:

Talk:Usage share of operating systems#Summary of issues with median row of the usage share table

347:

The tables' content is statistical data, which (without proper summary) is suspected to violate

182:

Talk:Usage share of operating systems#Summary of issues with median row of the usage share table

3315: 3269: 3210: 3100:

It is the median of reported usage share, which is a good approximation of actual usage share.

3068: 3007: 2524: 2432: 2396: 2377: 2368:. But again, if you can help bring this forward in a productive manner I think all of us will 2312: 2248: 2199: 2086: 1986: 1917:

between the different lines. Overall I think our ideas of common sense diverge badly on this.

1865: 1620: 1495: 1462: 1366: 1346: 1304: 1290: 1240: 1046: 896: 866: 861: 765: 539: 208: 95: 2982:

and illustrate with bars instead of pie charts - which would be the natural illustration for

2280: 2044: 1875: 1547: 1185: 356: 253: 131: 3020: 2194:. It is content under dispute and cannot be added back until dispute has been resolved. -- 1981:- and that trumps concerns that readers may not be able to read the sources themselves. -- 1121:

a similar comment above, but I thought I would point out that I also had missed the vote.

401: 380: 293: 3229: 3176: 3045: 2942: 2897: 2864: 2811: 2792: 2747: 2610: 2495: 2414: 2333: 2154: 2123: 2059: 2005: 1922: 1809: 1773: 1727: 1719: 1715: 1689: 1533: 1440: 1411: 1393: 1382: 1178: 1122: 1030: 962: 948: 881: 802: 752: 733: 593: 506: 394: 309: 2132:

This wouldn't be good faith edit, as it is motivated by content-unrelated thoughts. —

3381: 3356: 3327: 3283: 3168: 3056: 3036: 2966: 2803: 2784: 2538: 2484: 2447: 2341: 2337: 2295: 2276: 2262: 2214: 2164: 2146: 2133: 2101: 2052: 2038: 1974: 1956: 1887: 1823: 1794: 1735: 1655: 1611:

until a consensus is reached to add it back in. If that leaves only the bare sources

1596: 1578: 1555: 1513: 1426: 1335: 1274: 1255: 1251: 1228: 1224: 1220: 1212: 1204: 1174: 1162: 1150: 1104: 1070: 1011: 996: 988: 929: 778: 756: 719: 704: 651: 643: 629: 518: 483: 468: 238: 228: 218: 203: 149: 119: 111: 103: 91: 76: 3088:

What makes you think they are not comparable? I don't have an issue comparing them.

1361:

Can we agree that we have failed to reach consensus, despite a long running debate?

375:

The line was intended to be a summary of statistical data in the table, so that per

3311: 3265: 3206: 3202: 3172: 3064: 3003: 2520: 2512: 2392: 2373: 2244: 2195: 2100:

for explanation. I would consider further out-of-consensus actions as vandalism. —

2082: 1982: 1883: 1879: 1861: 1849: 1734:'s graphic are of no use to readers, as they are too difficult to be understood. — 1731: 1616: 1491: 1458: 1362: 1342: 1327: 1236: 1042: 761: 387: 333: 248: 127: 1882:

if it harms the article or its development. This explicitly told in disclaimer of

2783:

Please do not interrupt other peoples comments unless they are quite long as per

2695:

Because it doesn't add up to a number you think it should, doesn't make it wrong.

2051:" and that no single source directly supports the median (multiple sources being 509:; however, the values on which this calculation are being performed appear to be 600:

to either withdraw from the mediation or seek an experienced co-mediator at the

223: 107: 2737:

Your opinion is noted. We should poll and find out what everyone's opinion is.

2081:

If anyone has objections please note here and address the above points, please

372:

line constitute a summary or further statistical research on statistical data?

41: 213: 99: 2487:

of multiple sources, which are again selected by WP editors (policy concern).

3225: 3041: 2860: 2807: 2788: 2743: 2606: 2410: 2150: 2119: 1918: 1769: 1685: 1615:. There is plenty of other content in the article to make it interesting. -- 1529: 1407: 1378: 1026: 958: 944: 798: 233: 115: 2163:

Trust me, I tried as far as I could. I see no grounds for this any more. —

2504:

The medians when calculated by browser may indicate a "central tendency"

2391:, please? (sorry - i don't know how to make a history page link in WP) -- 505:

a "routine" calculation. It is trivial mathematics that easily satisfies

2550:

Yes we know that. That is why a bar chart is used and not a pie chart.

1599:

says here is basic WP policy: Burden of proof lies on the editors who

1406:

Actually no the geometric mean is used in some cases a bit like this.

1341:

such synthesis. I didn't realize this until now - but it is that bad.

2049:

burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material

1203:

remove the median from the OS usage share, believing I was following

1056:

Bullshit. Every time you lose a round you try to move the goalposts.

339:

The contents of the line is not directly supported by the references.

316: 3063:

usage share truth and even quoting it with 1-2 decimals precision.--

1955:

for explanation of how Your position violates Knowledge's policy. —

1554:

from the article until there is a clear consensus for inclusion. --

517:, but only if it could be based on values that aren't disparate. -- 1227:. I was threatened (like above) that if I removed the median again 2344:

in general. The discussion in here was "forcibly stopped" because

814:- New issues should be brought up on respective talk pages first. 2483:

The median is calculated across multiple sources, which makes it

2430:

other, etc. Not an environment of camaradarie or mutual respect.

2062:

combined with the fact that clearly no consensus as demonstrated

413:

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

2544:

There has been good consensus in the past and on this talk page.

390:

as a summary supported by references to the summarised material;

3029:

as a picture of the large variation between different sources."

2035:

from the article until there is a clear consensus for inclusion

1322:

In other words, these articles (which are just examples) quote

277:. As the same principle forms the ground of multiple tables in 440:. Effectively, the editors go in rounds with the same claims. 2096:

This action is a Knowledge policy violation. Please refer to

432:

What issues needs to be addressed to help resolve the dispute

1488:

who in here believes that we have or can arrive at consensus

913:

that they accept the median and no one opposed the median.

344:

Do the tables in the aforementioned articles need summary?

2990:. I maintain that the median is a bad decision because it 3310:

No problem. But we've been over this so many times now --

894:(shrugs). It was the first thing that came into my mind. 2856: 2662: 2389: 597: 577: 269:

The central point of the dispute is whether to include

1326:

created by Knowledge editors in the 2 articles - i.e.

1269:

Unfortunately, the medians and the derived graphs are

284:

The main questions the agreement is not reached upon:

159:

Closing. Parties no longer feel mediation is required.

2149:, but perhaps the mediator has a different approach? 1273:

by other wikipedia articles. It certainly proves why

2024:

Removing the median until dispute has been resolved

1207:guidelines and removing improper synthesis. It was 155: 141: 87: 72: 64: 56: 48: 32: 3160:Knowledge is not in the business of approximations 404:as the least inaccurate method to summarise data. 2519:calculate statistics across multiple sources. -- 2031:I do strongly recommend that the median data is 397:as a mere arithmetic operation, not statistical; 2742:And I think that summaries my feeling about it 2605:And I think that summaries my feeling about it 2537:Simple calcs on multiple sources does not mean 3183:Hiding the fact that the numbers don't add up 1730:, then both this table without this line and 8: 2388:On that note, could you have a look at this 1153:policy to be amended. I still feel that the 624:I'm attaching myself to this case to assist 460:There seems to be two separate issues here: 3148:. A percentage is another way to express a 2980:hide the fact that the numbers don't add up 2231:I have removed it again. You cannot invoke 1157:is the correct place for such a dispute. I 686:I have moved the initial discussion to the 1836:You are still arguing from a premise that 1317:show the "median" graph without the table. 1233:Knowledge:No_original_research/noticeboard 1155:Knowledge:No_original_research/noticeboard 444:What can we do to help resolve this issue? 3156:mistake the number for "the" usage share. 2709:The opportunity is to summarize the data. 2348:. About the "middle ground proposal" you 909:There were 7 people who indicated on the 427:closed with recommendation to apply here. 1250:I was opposed to the median line due to 1065:add forum shopping to the list. This is 654:to be the experienced mediator required 2855:Richard Gill in the place you indicate 2663:See comments by professor of statistics 2279:. Keep it removed while it is disputed. 1136:I also want to point out that it was a 2360:at that point, the closing was due to 1973:content policy (very few of those) is 662:the page is taken off hold there too. 187:WT:NOR#Possible enhancement of WP:CALC 29: 3187:the percentages would not be the same 2547:True and no one should state it does. 2029:based on the above mediator comment " 1840:has to replace the median. That is a 7: 3340:Don't understand. Can you clarify? 1277:must not be circumvented. Examples: 655: 3197:Median numbers have been quoted as 2346:there was no mediation taking place 2243:until dispute has been resolved. -- 3115:central tendency of the population 2996:central tendency of the population 2553:Have them point back to the table. 2332:and specifically how to interpret 1852:is not a balacing policy, it is a 995:, which isn't going to happen. -- 467:Whether or not having it violates 281:, this article was also attached. 28: 3113:"... it will be mistaken for the 2896:instead of Prof. Gill's opinion. 1455:we have failed to reach consensus 3205:and why this median has to go.-- 2192:Usage share of operating systems 1309:Usage share of operating systems 828:There have been no edit wars on 656: 588:, is very inexperienced and the 377:WP:SYNTHNOT#SYNTH is not summary 275:Usage share of operating systems 52:Usage share of operating systems 40: 3144:: The reader is presented with 2186:I have removed the median from 2074:and as demonstrated during the 1332:This is the core of the problem 1315:Comparison of operating systems 648:Knowledge:Mediation_Cabal/Cases 436:The participants fail to reach 2446:what form that might take. -- 1149:; one which could require the 673:14:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC). 1: 3388:Knowledge Medcab closed cases 3292:23:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC) 3274:20:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC) 3259:23:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC) 3134:23:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC) 3073:13:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC) 3050:10:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC) 3012:08:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC) 2963:it is across multiple sources 2951:03:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC) 2920:02:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC) 2906:01:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC) 2891:01:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC) 2869:17:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC) 2831:17:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC) 2816:15:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC) 2797:15:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC) 2767:14:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC) 2752:18:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC) 2615:18:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC) 2567:16:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC) 2529:16:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC) 2475:15:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC) 2456:14:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC) 2441:06:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC) 2419:11:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC) 2401:06:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC) 2382:06:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC) 2321:05:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC) 2304:20:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC) 2287:20:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC) 2271:20:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC) 2253:20:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC) 2223:19:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC) 2204:19:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC) 2173:17:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC) 2159:17:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC) 2142:16:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC) 2128:16:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC) 2110:15:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC) 2091:07:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC) 2014:05:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC) 1991:20:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC) 1965:15:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC) 1927:10:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC) 1896:09:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC) 1870:07:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC) 1832:01:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC) 1818:00:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC) 1803:22:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC) 1778:21:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC) 1744:20:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC) 1694:19:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC) 1664:20:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC) 1625:19:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC) 1587:17:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC) 1564:12:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC) 1538:23:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC) 1522:21:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC) 1500:20:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC) 1467:19:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC) 1449:20:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC) 1435:19:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC) 1416:19:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC) 1402:19:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC) 1387:18:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC) 1371:17:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC) 1351:19:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC) 1264:16:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC) 1245:00:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC) 1195:on editors seeking to add or 1131:23:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC) 1113:17:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC) 1079:16:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC) 1051:16:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC) 1035:16:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC) 1020:16:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC) 1005:13:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC) 967:13:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC) 953:13:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC) 938:09:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC) 923:04:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC) 905:04:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC) 890:03:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC) 875:22:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC) 856:22:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC) 842:20:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC) 824:20:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC) 807:19:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC) 787:19:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC) 770:16:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC) 742:15:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC) 728:15:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC) 713:22:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC) 699:13:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC) 638:13:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC) 620:14:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC) 572:15:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC) 548:01:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC) 527:14:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC) 492:17:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC) 68:20:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC) 3365:01:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC) 3350:20:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC) 3336:19:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC) 3320:06:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC) 3306:00:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC) 3234:01:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC) 3215:06:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC) 3080:About the numbers not being 1878:we should just forget about 592:of the Mediation Cabal (and 3247:usage share of web browsers 2988:original research territory 2372:your increased attention.-- 2209:I've reverted the edit per 2188:Usage share of web browsers 1607:material. Consequently the 1295:usage share of web browsers 1285:usage share of web browsers 1060:started all this nonsense. 830:Usage share of web browsers 755:), it is still an inproper 279:Usage share of web browsers 3404: 2294:OK, thanks to everyone. — 1718:and no summary is needed? 1281:Comparison of web browsers 1167:failing to reach consensus 1093:If in doubt, leave it out. 2480:To summarize the issues: 1591:I can answer that: It is 39: 34:Knowledge Mediation Cabal 18:Knowledge:Mediation Cabal 3175:. The examples given in 2881:Do you agree with this? 2665:that disagrees with you. 2366:fight, bicker or soapbox 1874:You're plain wrong. Per 1479:Move to end medcab with 3000:they are not comparable 1287:. No caveats mentioned. 501:Calculating the median 3142:Numbers not comparable 1609:median must be removed 1293:quotes the medians of 2873:From Professor Gill: 2070:, as demonstrated in 2066:, as demonstrated in 1858:all original research 1171:core content policies 1067:WP:disruptive editing 421:contains RfC request. 383:it would be excused: 273:line in the table in 171:Where is the dispute? 3117:which it is not..." 2994:be mistaken for the 1283:uses the graph from 1271:already being quoted 1223:- it was removed by 880:there is a problem. 646:to the summary page 532:Administrative notes 265:What is the dispute? 244:Professor marginalia 124:Professor marginalia 3328:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff 3199:actual usage shares 2296:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff 2263:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff 2215:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff 2165:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff 2134:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff 2102:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff 1957:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff 1888:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff 1824:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff 1795:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff 1736:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff 1656:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff 1579:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff 1514:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff 1427:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff 1334:and the reason why 1219:mark the median as 794:Definitely required 779:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff 204:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff 92:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff 77:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff 2072:previous mediation 1453:Do you agree that 1357:Agree to disagree? 1193:burden of evidence 749:Mediation required 2362:lack of mediation 2277:assume good faith 1846:does not validate 1490:on this dispute? 1328:original research 1307:quotes median of 1305:Microsoft Windows 1291:Internet Explorer 674: 594:there is no cabal 163: 162: 3395: 2490:The median is a 2439: 2435: 2319: 2315: 2275:Time for you to 1951:Please refer to 1103:be included. -- 903: 899: 873: 869: 695: 694:Mr. Stradivarius 672: 661: 660: 659: 616: 610: 602:MedCab talk page 568: 562: 546: 542: 198:Who is involved? 88:Parties involved 73:Requesting party 44: 30: 3403: 3402: 3398: 3397: 3396: 3394: 3393: 3392: 3378: 3377: 3355:out for me. -- 3342:Daniel.Cardenas 3298:Daniel.Cardenas 3251:Daniel.Cardenas 3242: 3150:part of a whole 3126:Daniel.Cardenas 3094:which it is not 2971:which it is not 2912:Daniel.Cardenas 2883:Daniel.Cardenas 2823:Daniel.Cardenas 2759:Daniel.Cardenas 2559:Daniel.Cardenas 2467:Daniel.Cardenas 2433: 2431: 2354:forcibly closed 2313: 2311: 2233:WP:NOTSTATSBOOK 2211:WP:NOTSTATSBOOK 2098:WP:NOTSTATSBOOK 2026: 1979:harms Knowledge 1953:WP:NOTSTATSBOOK 1484: 1359: 915:Daniel.Cardenas 897: 895: 867: 865: 848:Daniel.Cardenas 834:Daniel.Cardenas 816:Daniel.Cardenas 693: 684: 657: 614: 606: 566: 558: 540: 538: 534: 499: 458: 446: 434: 415: 349:WP:NOTSTATSBOOK 267: 259:Daniel.Cardenas 200: 173: 168: 166:Request details 136:Daniel.Cardenas 26: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 3401: 3399: 3391: 3390: 3380: 3379: 3376: 3375: 3374: 3373: 3372: 3371: 3370: 3369: 3368: 3367: 3324: 3323: 3322: 3277: 3276: 3241: 3238: 3237: 3236: 3220: 3219: 3218: 3217: 3195: 3180: 3157: 3123: 3122: 3111: 3110: 3104:About hiding. 3102: 3101: 3090: 3089: 3078: 3077: 3076: 3075: 3031: 3030: 3025: 3024: 3015: 3014: 2965:and therefore 2939: 2938: 2937: 2936: 2935: 2934: 2933: 2932: 2931: 2930: 2929: 2928: 2927: 2926: 2925: 2924: 2923: 2922: 2879: 2878: 2877: 2842: 2841: 2840: 2839: 2838: 2837: 2836: 2835: 2834: 2833: 2799: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2740: 2739: 2738: 2732: 2731: 2727: 2726: 2725: 2724: 2718: 2717: 2713: 2712: 2711: 2710: 2704: 2703: 2699: 2698: 2697: 2696: 2690: 2689: 2684: 2683: 2682: 2681: 2674: 2673: 2669: 2668: 2667: 2666: 2656: 2655: 2650: 2649: 2648: 2647: 2641: 2640: 2636: 2635: 2634: 2633: 2627: 2626: 2620: 2619: 2618: 2617: 2602: 2601: 2598: 2595: 2592: 2588: 2585: 2581: 2578: 2572: 2571: 2570: 2569: 2556: 2555: 2554: 2551: 2548: 2545: 2542: 2532: 2531: 2509: 2506:of the sources 2502: 2499: 2488: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2460: 2459: 2458: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2404: 2403: 2385: 2384: 2352:look into the 2324: 2323: 2292: 2291: 2290: 2289: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2241:remain removed 2226: 2225: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2079: 2078: 2076:initial debate 2056: 2041: 2025: 2022: 2021: 2020: 2019: 2018: 2017: 2016: 2001: 2000: 1999: 1998: 1997: 1996: 1995: 1994: 1993: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1934: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1905: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1791: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1750: 1749: 1748: 1747: 1746: 1726:line violates 1703: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1653: 1649: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1628: 1627: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1541: 1540: 1525: 1524: 1510: 1507: 1483: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1437: 1418: 1358: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1312: 1302: 1288: 1248: 1247: 1147:policy dispute 1118: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1038: 1037: 1022: 984: 983: 982: 981: 980: 979: 978: 977: 976: 975: 974: 973: 972: 971: 970: 969: 955: 940: 809: 790: 789: 772: 745: 744: 732:I believe so. 730: 683: 680: 679: 678: 677: 676: 675: 626:thehistorian10 622: 608:TransporterMan 586:Thehistorian10 574: 560:TransporterMan 554:Thehistorian10 550: 533: 530: 498: 495: 476: 475: 465: 457: 456:Mediator notes 454: 445: 442: 433: 430: 429: 428: 422: 414: 411: 410: 409: 408: 407: 406: 405: 398: 391: 366: 365: 364: 342: 341: 340: 326: 325: 324: 302: 301: 300: 266: 263: 262: 261: 256: 251: 246: 241: 236: 231: 226: 221: 216: 211: 206: 199: 196: 195: 194: 189: 184: 179: 172: 169: 167: 164: 161: 160: 157: 153: 152: 146:thehistorian10 143: 139: 138: 89: 85: 84: 74: 70: 69: 66: 62: 61: 58: 54: 53: 50: 46: 45: 37: 36: 27: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3400: 3389: 3386: 3385: 3383: 3366: 3362: 3358: 3353: 3352: 3351: 3347: 3343: 3339: 3338: 3337: 3333: 3329: 3325: 3321: 3317: 3313: 3309: 3308: 3307: 3303: 3299: 3295: 3294: 3293: 3289: 3285: 3281: 3280: 3279: 3278: 3275: 3271: 3267: 3263: 3262: 3261: 3260: 3256: 3252: 3248: 3239: 3235: 3231: 3227: 3222: 3221: 3216: 3212: 3208: 3204: 3200: 3196: 3192: 3188: 3184: 3181: 3178: 3174: 3170: 3165: 3161: 3158: 3155: 3151: 3147: 3143: 3140: 3139: 3138: 3137: 3136: 3135: 3131: 3127: 3120: 3119: 3118: 3116: 3107: 3106: 3105: 3099: 3098: 3097: 3095: 3087: 3086: 3085: 3083: 3074: 3070: 3066: 3062: 3058: 3053: 3052: 3051: 3047: 3043: 3038: 3033: 3032: 3027: 3026: 3022: 3017: 3016: 3013: 3009: 3005: 3001: 2997: 2993: 2989: 2985: 2981: 2976: 2972: 2968: 2964: 2960: 2955: 2954: 2953: 2952: 2948: 2944: 2921: 2917: 2913: 2909: 2908: 2907: 2903: 2899: 2894: 2893: 2892: 2888: 2884: 2880: 2875: 2874: 2872: 2871: 2870: 2866: 2862: 2857: 2854: 2853: 2852: 2851: 2850: 2849: 2848: 2847: 2846: 2845: 2844: 2843: 2832: 2828: 2824: 2819: 2818: 2817: 2813: 2809: 2805: 2800: 2798: 2794: 2790: 2786: 2782: 2781: 2780: 2779: 2778: 2777: 2776: 2775: 2768: 2764: 2760: 2755: 2754: 2753: 2749: 2745: 2741: 2736: 2735: 2734: 2733: 2729: 2728: 2722: 2721: 2720: 2719: 2715: 2714: 2708: 2707: 2706: 2705: 2701: 2700: 2694: 2693: 2692: 2691: 2686: 2685: 2678: 2677: 2676: 2675: 2671: 2670: 2664: 2660: 2659: 2658: 2657: 2652: 2651: 2645: 2644: 2643: 2642: 2638: 2637: 2631: 2630: 2629: 2628: 2624: 2623: 2622: 2621: 2616: 2612: 2608: 2604: 2603: 2599: 2596: 2593: 2589: 2586: 2582: 2579: 2576: 2575: 2574: 2573: 2568: 2564: 2560: 2557: 2552: 2549: 2546: 2543: 2540: 2536: 2535: 2534: 2533: 2530: 2526: 2522: 2518: 2514: 2510: 2507: 2503: 2500: 2497: 2493: 2489: 2486: 2482: 2481: 2479: 2478: 2477: 2476: 2472: 2468: 2457: 2453: 2449: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2438: 2436: 2428: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2420: 2416: 2412: 2408: 2407: 2406: 2405: 2402: 2398: 2394: 2390: 2387: 2386: 2383: 2379: 2375: 2371: 2367: 2363: 2359: 2355: 2351: 2347: 2343: 2339: 2335: 2331: 2326: 2325: 2322: 2318: 2316: 2308: 2307: 2306: 2305: 2301: 2297: 2288: 2285: 2282: 2278: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2268: 2264: 2260: 2259: 2254: 2250: 2246: 2242: 2238: 2234: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2227: 2224: 2220: 2216: 2212: 2208: 2207: 2206: 2205: 2201: 2197: 2193: 2189: 2174: 2170: 2166: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2156: 2152: 2148: 2145: 2144: 2143: 2139: 2135: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2125: 2121: 2117: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2107: 2103: 2099: 2095: 2094: 2093: 2092: 2088: 2084: 2077: 2073: 2069: 2065: 2061: 2057: 2054: 2050: 2046: 2042: 2040: 2036: 2034: 2028: 2027: 2023: 2015: 2011: 2007: 2002: 1992: 1988: 1984: 1980: 1976: 1972: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1962: 1958: 1954: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1928: 1924: 1920: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1897: 1893: 1889: 1885: 1881: 1877: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1867: 1863: 1859: 1855: 1851: 1847: 1843: 1842:false premise 1839: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1829: 1825: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1815: 1811: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1804: 1800: 1796: 1779: 1775: 1771: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1745: 1741: 1737: 1733: 1729: 1725: 1721: 1717: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1695: 1691: 1687: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1665: 1661: 1657: 1654: 1650: 1647: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1636: 1635: 1626: 1622: 1618: 1614: 1610: 1606: 1602: 1598: 1594: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1584: 1580: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1565: 1561: 1557: 1553: 1549: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1539: 1535: 1531: 1527: 1526: 1523: 1519: 1515: 1511: 1508: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1497: 1493: 1489: 1482: 1478: 1468: 1464: 1460: 1456: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1446: 1442: 1438: 1436: 1432: 1428: 1424: 1419: 1417: 1413: 1409: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1399: 1395: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1384: 1380: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1368: 1364: 1356: 1352: 1348: 1344: 1340: 1337: 1333: 1329: 1325: 1324:the synthesis 1321: 1316: 1313: 1310: 1306: 1303: 1300: 1296: 1292: 1289: 1286: 1282: 1279: 1278: 1276: 1272: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1261: 1257: 1253: 1246: 1242: 1238: 1234: 1230: 1226: 1222: 1218: 1214: 1210: 1206: 1202: 1198: 1194: 1190: 1187: 1183: 1180: 1176: 1172: 1168: 1164: 1160: 1156: 1152: 1148: 1143: 1139: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1128: 1124: 1114: 1110: 1106: 1102: 1098: 1094: 1089: 1085: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1076: 1072: 1068: 1063: 1059: 1055: 1054: 1053: 1052: 1048: 1044: 1036: 1032: 1028: 1023: 1021: 1017: 1013: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1006: 1002: 998: 994: 990: 968: 964: 960: 956: 954: 950: 946: 941: 939: 935: 931: 926: 925: 924: 920: 916: 912: 908: 907: 906: 902: 900: 893: 892: 891: 887: 883: 878: 877: 876: 872: 870: 863: 859: 858: 857: 853: 849: 845: 844: 843: 839: 835: 831: 827: 826: 825: 821: 817: 813: 810: 808: 804: 800: 795: 792: 791: 788: 784: 780: 776: 773: 771: 767: 763: 758: 754: 750: 747: 746: 743: 739: 735: 731: 729: 725: 721: 717: 716: 715: 714: 710: 706: 701: 700: 697: 696: 689: 681: 670: 669: 666: 653: 649: 645: 642:I have added 641: 640: 639: 635: 631: 627: 623: 621: 617: 611: 609: 603: 599: 595: 591: 587: 583: 579: 575: 573: 569: 563: 561: 555: 551: 549: 545: 543: 536: 535: 531: 529: 528: 524: 520: 516: 512: 508: 504: 496: 494: 493: 489: 485: 481: 473: 470: 466: 463: 462: 461: 455: 453: 451: 443: 441: 439: 431: 426: 423: 420: 417: 416: 412: 403: 399: 396: 392: 389: 385: 384: 382: 378: 374: 373: 371: 367: 362: 361:WP:NOT PAPERS 358: 354: 350: 346: 345: 343: 338: 337: 335: 332:line violate 331: 327: 322: 318: 314: 313: 311: 308:line violate 307: 303: 298: 297: 295: 292:line violate 291: 287: 286: 285: 282: 280: 276: 272: 264: 260: 257: 255: 252: 250: 247: 245: 242: 240: 237: 235: 232: 230: 227: 225: 222: 220: 217: 215: 212: 210: 207: 205: 202: 201: 197: 193: 190: 188: 185: 183: 180: 178: 175: 174: 170: 165: 158: 154: 151: 147: 144: 140: 137: 133: 129: 125: 121: 117: 113: 109: 105: 101: 97: 93: 90: 86: 82: 78: 75: 71: 67: 63: 59: 55: 51: 47: 43: 38: 35: 31: 23: 19: 3243: 3198: 3194:abomination. 3190: 3186: 3182: 3163: 3159: 3153: 3149: 3145: 3141: 3124: 3114: 3112: 3103: 3093: 3091: 3081: 3079: 3060: 2999: 2995: 2991: 2987: 2983: 2979: 2974: 2970: 2962: 2959:professional 2958: 2940: 2516: 2515:. WP should 2505: 2494:, and under 2491: 2464: 2434:Steven Zhang 2369: 2365: 2361: 2357: 2353: 2349: 2345: 2329: 2314:Steven Zhang 2293: 2240: 2236: 2185: 2116:WP:VANDALISM 2080: 2075: 2071: 2067: 2063: 2048: 2032: 2030: 1978: 1970: 1857: 1853: 1848:the median. 1845: 1841: 1837: 1792: 1723: 1645: 1612: 1608: 1604: 1600: 1592: 1551: 1487: 1485: 1481:no consensus 1480: 1454: 1360: 1338: 1331: 1323: 1311:as "source". 1298: 1270: 1249: 1216: 1208: 1200: 1199:material. I 1196: 1192: 1188: 1181: 1170: 1166: 1158: 1146: 1141: 1137: 1119: 1100: 1096: 1092: 1087: 1083: 1061: 1057: 1039: 992: 985: 898:Steven Zhang 868:Steven Zhang 812:Not required 811: 793: 774: 748: 702: 691: 685: 663: 607: 590:coordinators 559: 541:Steven Zhang 514: 510: 502: 500: 479: 477: 471: 459: 450:WP:CONSENSUS 447: 438:WP:CONSENSUS 435: 369: 329: 320: 305: 289: 283: 270: 268: 209:WhatamIdoing 96:WhatamIdoing 65:Request date 3146:percentages 2492:calculation 2281:Jasper Deng 1854:prohibition 1593:not our job 1486:Once again 1423:plain wrong 1201:did in fact 1191:places the 1165:above that 1161:agree with 1041:noticeboard 650:. Assuming 556:. Regards, 353:WP:LINKFARM 254:Jasper Deng 142:Mediator(s) 132:Jasper Deng 3082:comparable 2358:incivility 1301:, no less! 1209:added back 1189:explicitly 1182:explicitly 1142:compromise 1138:compromise 862:WP:SOFIXIT 682:Discussion 668:Farmbrough 576:I've been 3240:Consensus 2975:comparing 2943:Thenub314 2898:Thenub314 2058:based on 2045:WP:BURDEN 2043:based on 2006:Thenub314 1876:WP:COMMON 1838:something 1810:Thenub314 1548:WP:ARBCOM 1441:Thenub314 1394:Thenub314 1339:prohibits 1186:WP:VERIFY 1123:Thenub314 911:talk page 882:Thenub314 734:Thenub314 688:talk page 598:asked him 511:disparate 368:Does the 357:WP:NOTDIR 3382:Category 3357:Scjessey 3284:Scjessey 3021:WP:IMAGE 2688:sources. 2591:sources. 2448:Scjessey 2330:policies 2039:Scjessey 1856:against 1652:article. 1613:so be it 1597:Scjessey 1556:Scjessey 1299:decimals 1256:Wikiolap 1235:route. 1229:Harumphy 1225:Harumphy 1213:Harumphy 1163:Scjessey 1105:Scjessey 1097:excluded 1071:Harumphy 1012:Harumphy 997:Scjessey 930:Harumphy 860:There's 775:Required 720:Scjessey 705:Harumphy 652:Scjessey 644:Scjessey 630:Scjessey 582:Czarkoff 519:Scjessey 484:Scjessey 402:WP:SYNTH 381:WP:WIARM 294:WP:SYNTH 239:Wikiolap 229:Dilaudid 219:Harumphy 150:Scjessey 120:Wikiolap 112:Dilaudid 104:Harumphy 20:‎ | 3312:Useerup 3266:Useerup 3207:Useerup 3177:WP:CALC 3065:Useerup 3004:Useerup 2521:Useerup 2496:WP:CALC 2393:Useerup 2374:Useerup 2370:welcome 2334:WP:CALC 2245:Useerup 2196:Useerup 2083:Useerup 2060:WP:CALC 2033:removed 1983:Useerup 1862:Useerup 1732:Useerup 1728:WP:CALC 1720:WP:CALC 1716:WP:CALC 1617:Useerup 1605:restore 1552:removed 1492:Useerup 1459:Useerup 1363:Useerup 1343:Useerup 1237:Useerup 1197:restore 1179:WP:CALC 1043:Useerup 762:Useerup 753:WP:CALC 507:WP:CALC 395:WP:CALC 310:WP:CALC 249:Useerup 156:Comment 128:Useerup 49:Article 3191:median 3169:WP:SYN 3057:WP:NOR 3037:WP:NOT 2984:shares 2967:WP:SYN 2804:WP:NOT 2785:WP:TPO 2680:share. 2539:wp:syn 2485:WP:SYN 2342:WP:NOR 2338:WP:SYN 2284:(talk) 2147:WP:AGF 2053:WP:SYN 1975:WP:NOR 1724:median 1457:then? 1336:WP:NOR 1275:WP:NOR 1252:WP:NOR 1221:WP:SYN 1205:WP:NOR 1175:WP:NOR 1151:WP:NOR 993:ruling 989:WP:SYN 757:WP:SYN 515:useful 480:second 469:WP:SYN 370:Median 330:Median 317:median 306:Median 290:Median 271:Median 224:1exec1 148:& 108:1exec1 60:Closed 57:Status 3203:WP:OR 3173:WP:OR 3109:100%. 2654:what? 2584:what? 2517:never 2513:WP:OR 2350:could 2037:" by 1884:WP:OR 1880:WP:OR 1850:WP:OR 1506:upon. 628:. -- 578:asked 472:et al 400:from 393:from 388:WP:OR 386:from 334:WP:OR 328:Does 304:Does 288:Does 214:Jdm64 100:Jdm64 22:Cases 16:< 3361:talk 3346:talk 3332:talk 3316:talk 3302:talk 3288:talk 3270:talk 3255:talk 3230:talk 3226:Dmcq 3211:talk 3171:and 3164:mean 3154:will 3130:talk 3069:talk 3046:talk 3042:Dmcq 3008:talk 3002:. -- 2992:will 2947:talk 2916:talk 2902:talk 2887:talk 2865:talk 2861:Dmcq 2827:talk 2812:talk 2808:Dmcq 2793:talk 2789:Dmcq 2763:talk 2748:talk 2744:Dmcq 2611:talk 2607:Dmcq 2563:talk 2525:talk 2471:talk 2452:talk 2415:talk 2411:Dmcq 2397:talk 2378:talk 2340:and 2300:talk 2267:talk 2249:talk 2219:talk 2200:talk 2190:and 2169:talk 2155:talk 2151:Dmcq 2138:talk 2124:talk 2120:Dmcq 2106:talk 2087:talk 2064:here 2010:talk 1987:talk 1971:core 1961:talk 1923:talk 1919:Dmcq 1892:talk 1886:. — 1866:talk 1828:talk 1814:talk 1799:talk 1774:talk 1770:Dmcq 1740:talk 1690:talk 1686:Dmcq 1660:talk 1646:Only 1621:talk 1583:talk 1560:talk 1534:talk 1530:Dmcq 1518:talk 1496:talk 1463:talk 1445:talk 1431:talk 1425:. — 1412:talk 1408:Dmcq 1398:talk 1383:talk 1379:Dmcq 1367:talk 1347:talk 1260:talk 1241:talk 1215:. I 1159:also 1127:talk 1109:talk 1084:This 1075:talk 1047:talk 1031:talk 1027:Dmcq 1016:talk 1001:talk 963:talk 959:Dmcq 949:talk 945:Dmcq 934:talk 919:talk 886:talk 852:talk 838:talk 820:talk 803:talk 799:Dmcq 783:talk 766:talk 738:talk 724:talk 709:talk 665:Rich 634:talk 615:TALK 567:TALK 523:talk 497:CALC 488:talk 478:The 379:and 359:and 315:The 234:Dmcq 116:Dmcq 81:talk 3061:the 2237:add 2235:to 2068:RfC 1603:or 1601:add 1217:did 1211:by 1101:not 1062:You 1058:You 580:by 3384:: 3363:) 3348:) 3334:) 3318:) 3304:) 3290:) 3272:) 3257:) 3232:) 3213:) 3132:) 3096:. 3084:: 3071:) 3048:) 3010:) 2949:) 2918:) 2904:) 2889:) 2867:) 2829:) 2814:) 2795:) 2765:) 2750:) 2613:) 2565:) 2527:) 2473:) 2454:) 2417:) 2399:) 2380:) 2336:, 2302:) 2269:) 2251:) 2221:) 2202:) 2171:) 2157:) 2140:) 2126:) 2108:) 2089:) 2012:) 1989:) 1969:A 1963:) 1925:) 1894:) 1868:) 1830:) 1816:) 1801:) 1776:) 1742:) 1692:) 1662:) 1623:) 1585:) 1562:) 1536:) 1520:) 1512:— 1498:) 1465:) 1447:) 1433:) 1414:) 1400:) 1385:) 1369:) 1349:) 1330:. 1262:) 1243:) 1173:: 1129:) 1111:) 1088:my 1077:) 1049:) 1033:) 1018:) 1003:) 965:) 951:) 936:) 921:) 888:) 864:. 854:) 840:) 822:) 805:) 785:) 768:) 740:) 726:) 711:) 671:, 636:) 618:) 596:) 570:) 525:) 503:is 490:) 452:. 355:, 351:, 336:? 312:? 296:? 134:, 130:, 126:, 122:, 118:, 114:, 110:, 106:, 102:, 98:, 94:, 3359:( 3344:( 3330:( 3314:( 3300:( 3286:( 3268:( 3253:( 3228:( 3209:( 3128:( 3067:( 3044:( 3006:( 2945:( 2914:( 2900:( 2885:( 2863:( 2825:( 2810:( 2791:( 2761:( 2746:( 2609:( 2561:( 2541:. 2523:( 2469:( 2450:( 2413:( 2395:( 2376:( 2298:( 2265:( 2247:( 2217:( 2198:( 2167:( 2153:( 2136:( 2122:( 2104:( 2085:( 2055:. 2047:" 2008:( 1985:( 1959:( 1921:( 1890:( 1864:( 1826:( 1812:( 1797:( 1772:( 1738:( 1688:( 1658:( 1619:( 1581:( 1558:( 1532:( 1516:( 1494:( 1461:( 1443:( 1429:( 1410:( 1396:( 1381:( 1365:( 1345:( 1258:( 1239:( 1177:/ 1125:( 1107:( 1073:( 1045:( 1029:( 1014:( 999:( 961:( 947:( 932:( 917:( 884:( 850:( 836:( 818:( 801:( 781:( 764:( 736:( 722:( 707:( 632:( 612:( 564:( 521:( 486:( 474:. 363:. 323:. 321:1 83:) 79:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

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

Index