Wikipedia Revision Adds Election Analysis

Browse history interactively Revision as of 19:40, 5 November 2020 (view source) 186.194.61.220 (talk) Revision as of 19:42, 5 November 2020 (view source) Materialscientist (talk | contribs) Line 237: ==Election data== Benford's law has been invoked as evidence of fraud in the [[Iranian presidential election, 2009|2009 Iranian elections]].<ref>Stephen Battersby [https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227444.000-statistics-hint-at-fraud-in-iranian-election-not-also-used-to-analyse-election-results/ "New Scientist" 24 June 2009]</ref> and also used to analyze other election results. Line 237: ==Election data== Benford's law has been invoked as evidence of fraud in the [[Iranian presidential election, 2009|2009 Iranian elections]].<ref>Stephen Battersby [https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227444.000-statistics-hint-at-fraud-in-iranian-election-not-also-used-to-analyse-election-results/ "New Scientist" 24 June 2009]</ref> and also used to analyze other election results. However, other examples can be considered Benford's law problematic or misleading as a statistical indicator of election fraud.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Deckert |first1=Joseph |last2=Myagkov |first2=Mikhail |last3=Ordeshook |first3=Peter C. |title=Benford's Law and the Detection of Election Fraud |journal=Political Analysis |date=2011 |volume=19 |issue=3 |pages=245–268 |doi=10.1093/pan/mpr014 |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/political-analysis/article/benfords-law-and-the-detection-of-election-fraud/3D1B64E23F237C64F3C19E9AAF06E1B5}}</ref>

A screenshot of a Wikipedia revision comparison shows a later edit adding a long paragraph about Benford's law and election fraud to an article section on election data. The joke is that a seemingly minor edit suddenly expands into a politically charged statistical argument, evoking chaotic or suspicious online editing. EN: A screenshot of a Wikipedia revision comparison shows a later edit adding a long paragraph about Benford's law and election fraud to an article section on election data. The joke is that a seemingly minor edit suddenly expands into a politically charged statistical argument, evoking chaotic or suspicious online editing.

• @right_wing_dev_squads / 528 2020-11-09