Talk:Bias (statistics)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

File:Sciences humaines.svg This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2021 and 19 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): C.Hua Wang. Peer reviewers: Yibeiiiii, GeorgePan1012, Joannetsai.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 14 May 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 10:35, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

---

Bias (statistics) → Statistical biasStatistical bias – WP:NATURAL, as avoids seemingly unneeded parenthetical disambiguation. If the term is considered particular and technical enough within the field such that treating it lexically as a subset of the broader concept of bias is inappropriate, then that's fine, I just figure it's worth proposing. Remsense ‥ 论 12:16, 14 May 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 14:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Statistics, WikiProject Science, and WikiProject Mathematics have been notified of this discussion. Remsense ‥ 论 12:16, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support per Remsence’s rationale.

Rafts of Calm (talk) 15:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

@Fgnievinski, did you have an opinion? I was surmising it's plausible you might oppose given the WP:BOLD fix, but I'm not sure. If you do, I would very much like to know. Remsense ‥ 论 15:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense I'm neutral about it, leaning towards opposing. In statistics, one normally calls it just a bias, so the full name would only be used in a broader context of non-statistical biases. Looking at other statistical articles, I have the impression parenthetical disambiguation prevails, e.g., Power (statistics) instead of Statistical power. But I'm open to change opinion if the weight of evidence favors the proposal. fgnievinski (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! If others oppose it on these grounds I might close early. Remsense ‥ 论 15:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. As the proposer wrote: "If the term is considered particular and technical enough within the field such that treating it lexically as a subset of the broader concept of bias is inappropriate, then that's fine". This is not a "subset" of a broader concept of bias. The article titled bias says that bias "is a disproportionate weight in favor of or against an idea or thing". This is not an instance of that. Admittedly it is related, but it has a technical definition. On an exam you may be asked to calculate the bias of a particular estimator. Although not well known to non-statisticians, in some cases a biased estimator is demonstrably better than an unbiased estimator. I wrote a paper about one such example, published in the American Mathematical Monthly, a preprint of which can be seen on the arXiv here. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you very much for the insight. I'll withdraw this next time I'm at my desktop. Remsense ‥ 论 16:19, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.