"Steven Walling" wrote
You're trying to make an accurate judgment based on 100k of articles from a 2 million article field? Don't insult our intelligence.
Actually a 5% sample is large enough, if the numbers involved are large enough.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
On 10/10/07, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com < charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com> wrote:
"Steven Walling" wrote
You're trying to make an accurate judgment based on 100k of articles
from a
2 million article field? Don't insult our intelligence.
Actually a 5% sample is large enough, if the numbers involved are large enough.
Don't forget that political pollsters frequently draw conclusions about the opinions of millions of people based on 1,000 responses from a sample of people who have land lines.
Johnleemk
On 10/10/07, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Actually a 5% sample is large enough, if the numbers involved are large enough.
More importantly if the sample is diverse enough.
On 10/9/07, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
Given the lack of any recent official stats, I set out to generate my own using a dump of the Wikipedia log files and by systematically downloading (over many days) the history page contents for 100,000 articles.
I assume these were selected more or less at random?
—C.W.