There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with ![]() ![]() |
Talk:Statistical significance
Rewrite[edit]
Can I do I rewrite of this sometime in the next few weeks focusing on statistical significance? 10:56, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
- You can rewrite anything you like, but just curious what this article is "about" if not statistical significance? tmtoulouse beset 16:01, 25 August 2008 (EDT)
Jargonic solution[edit]
Weaseloid de-bronzed this. I've got no problem with that. However, I think some jargon is necessary. As a statistician, I'm probably biased. Is it better if the jargon-laden parts are segregated into a "technical details" kind of section or just annihilated altogether. I can do the former, but not the latter (it doesn't look very jargon-laden to me). MarmotHead (talk) 23:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
We need to talk about science[edit]
- But before we do, we need to watch YouTube videos about science. Cause that's what smart people do. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)