It's easy to see that most articles aren't controversial, but what about 'content control' edits outside of controversy? I listed some examples of this in my previous post and I wonder how the numbers would turn out if they were included. (By the way, do you have a link to the 'numbers' you referenced?)
Look at the history of a random article on Wikipedia and scroll through the edits. As an example, I chose the "Booting" article and got about 15 content control edits before I found one on January 4th that added content.
Of course, I don't know how this phenomenon could be resolved, or even that it should be. After all, WP editors are mostly amateurs and it makes sense that their contributions would be small or need to be controlled if large. I just wonder about the stats...
The amount of time and effort put into Wikipedia by unpaid editors is astounding. However, in my time spent on the site, I've noticed that a great deal of the work is spent on controlling content rather than contributing it. In addition to the much-discussed vandalism issues, editors spend great amounts of time discussing issues, developing templates, writing rules/policies, working on user pages, etc. What percentage of the edits on WP are adding content as opposed to controlling that content?
I've also noticed an increase in spam messages on my Gmail account. However, it hasn't been a sudden upheaval, but more of a steady increase from the time I signed up for the account (less than a year ago). This isn't surprising, though; I get more spam as more spam senders find my (relatively) new address.
Speaking of Gmail and spam, though, I've been very impressed with their ability to effectively filter unsolicited email ads. With the aforementioned increase, I probably receive close to 20 spam messages a day, 99.99% of which get filtered to my spam box. Also, I've only had two emails get unnecessarily filtered - ever. It appears that Google has already implemented Gates' spam "elimination" (i.e., effective "containment").
On a separate and more consipiratorial note, I've come to wonder if the reason Gmail does such a good job of filtering spam is that the spam is Google generated. Perhaps a secret arm of AdSense is for Google to send spammy messages to users that search for related keywords. The user (usually) isn't bothered because Gmail "caught" the spam and filtered it. The advertiser is reasonably pleased because there is at least a chance that the user will see the email and succumb to its carefully crafted subject line.
This article explains how to write your own boot sector. The tutorial includes assembly language code to demonstrate loading and executing a binary image from a FAT filesystem. It's also an interesting read if you want to understand the fundamentals of the X86 boot process.
You don't want more effort in data interpretation - you want it organized in a way that you find more useful. I interpreted it according to my stated objective, which was NOT to compare similar cars (although I allowed someone to do that). My goal was to layout the CHEAPEST option, for which I chose to compare the hybrid to the economy car.
I'm glad someone finally admitted the math is correct. If you can now realize the conclusion is stating the hybrid has a long ways to go to be the CHEAPEST option, then I think we'll see eye to eye.
Slashdot is great, but you guys don't know the definition of "wrong."
The point of the article was to compare the hybrid and see if its higher price could be compensated for with its fuel efficiency. The answer is no - as shown in the article. I mentioned many other factors for consideration, including value retention, tax breaks and many others, but they do not prove my calculations wrong.
The numbers you provided are dubious and unsupported. How can you expect anyone to take them seriously?
Empty claims don't get anyone anywhere.
I appreciate your comments (that also appear to have taken a lot of work). I will respond to them within the context of your original assertion (that my math is wrong) and just as general criticisms:
In my footnote I disclose the limitations of my analysis. Their "short-term" nature does not keep them from being economics - it's just an assumption. The results should be taken with that assumption in mind. As stated previously, this has nothing to do with the accuracy of the math involved. It seems your real issue here is that you think I am misleading the reader by not disclosing the limitations of my assumptions clear enough. I think that is not the case, but it is really a very subjective point (and completely unrelated to math). You also list other assumptions such as the interest rate, but (again) I don't see how the existence of assumptions compromises the math involved. Your issue, like before, must be that you think I am misleading the reader. I refer to my previous point: Assumptions exist. They are noted.
You are correct that the assumption of 1500miles/month is conservative in favor of the hybrid. The figures in the reference are per vehicle, which applies to our example independent of the number of cars in the household.
The 15% "fudge factor" is an effective way to represent additional costs involved in the purchase of a car. Yes, this might sometimes represent extra cash unrelated to the vehicle, but sometimes it will consist of taxes, transport fees, rust-proofing, etc. If you have a better reference for what the typical loan amount is relative to the sale price, I'd love to have it. In any case, the comparison to the economy car is consistent and (like before) mathematically sound given the assumption.
The MSRP is another assumption. It allows for even comparison. I could have gone with a certain percentage decrease due to discounts, but why? Yet again, this has nothing to do with incorrect math; it only indicates that you would have set up the problem differently.
The analysis was not set up to compare similar class vehicles but simply to analyze the ability of hybrids to save money over any other option. Again, an assumption. Again, nothing to do with math. Again, feel free to write your own version of the article. O-nerd still has the tools for it.
I mention insurance in the comments after the article. It is a factor I could have listed in the article. Nothing to do with math, however. (I need to start using an abbreviation for that: NTDWM from now on.)
How many math related issues? None. Issues not included? One. Problems with assumptions? Lots.
Thus, a proper critique would not be "MATH is Wrong" but "assumptions could be more reflective of real life," "assumptions should be more obvious and not in footnote" or "I would set the problem up differently." Not that your suggestions aren't well taken - but really, NTDWM.
Nest topic: The cost-of-money approach is a valid approach for businesses and I considered it. The fact that I chose not to use it does not make my analysis incorrect or even less representative of personal finances (I actually think it is more so).
However, your unsupported, unexplained and speculative analysis is exactly the kind of hype that I wrote the article to debunk. It may be correct, it may not. The important thing is that for anyone to find out they'd have to figure out and perform the analysis completely on their own - or just take your word for it. I don't doubt that you have some economic knowledge, but I'm not one to just accept someones claims because they spit them out. I suggest you write something detailed and supported and put it out there for the world to critique. It'd be harder on your brain, but you and anyone who reads what you wrote would get a lot more out of it - and it would rid the world of one more hype-source.
Btw, have you considered commenting on the article at the source? It's a smaller environment over there, but I kind of like that as the comments don't get lost in the sea of 1000...
First, I'm the author of the article, so we can stop talking about me in third person.
Second, I define the scope of my article and proceed accordingly. You may think the scope is too limited, but even if true that does not "make [the] math wrong."
Third, you are correct that there are many different ways to obtain cash to buy a new car without a loan. However, their existence has nothing to do with the accuracy of the math inside the stated scope.
Your ideas for further research are nice, but they don't make the math included in the article wrong. The article specifically states (footnote 21) that only comparison only covers the life of the loan. Within the stated scope, the math is correct.
I suggest you write the follow up article that contains the economic analysis you suggest. OmniNerd has a nice article collaboration tool you could use. Then maybe you'd be quoted on/. instead of stuck making unsupported accusations of bad math and repeat hype-speak.
Slashdot Mirror
Look at the history of a random article on Wikipedia and scroll through the edits. As an example, I chose the "Booting" article and got about 15 content control edits before I found one on January 4th that added content.
Of course, I don't know how this phenomenon could be resolved, or even that it should be. After all, WP editors are mostly amateurs and it makes sense that their contributions would be small or need to be controlled if large. I just wonder about the stats...
The amount of time and effort put into Wikipedia by unpaid editors is astounding. However, in my time spent on the site, I've noticed that a great deal of the work is spent on controlling content rather than contributing it. In addition to the much-discussed vandalism issues, editors spend great amounts of time discussing issues, developing templates, writing rules/policies, working on user pages, etc. What percentage of the edits on WP are adding content as opposed to controlling that content?
Speaking of Gmail and spam, though, I've been very impressed with their ability to effectively filter unsolicited email ads. With the aforementioned increase, I probably receive close to 20 spam messages a day, 99.99% of which get filtered to my spam box. Also, I've only had two emails get unnecessarily filtered - ever. It appears that Google has already implemented Gates' spam "elimination" (i.e., effective "containment").
On a separate and more consipiratorial note, I've come to wonder if the reason Gmail does such a good job of filtering spam is that the spam is Google generated. Perhaps a secret arm of AdSense is for Google to send spammy messages to users that search for related keywords. The user (usually) isn't bothered because Gmail "caught" the spam and filtered it. The advertiser is reasonably pleased because there is at least a chance that the user will see the email and succumb to its carefully crafted subject line.
This article explains how to write your own boot sector. The tutorial includes assembly language code to demonstrate loading and executing a binary image from a FAT filesystem. It's also an interesting read if you want to understand the fundamentals of the X86 boot process.
You don't want more effort in data interpretation - you want it organized in a way that you find more useful. I interpreted it according to my stated objective, which was NOT to compare similar cars (although I allowed someone to do that). My goal was to layout the CHEAPEST option, for which I chose to compare the hybrid to the economy car. I'm glad someone finally admitted the math is correct. If you can now realize the conclusion is stating the hybrid has a long ways to go to be the CHEAPEST option, then I think we'll see eye to eye.
Slashdot is great, but you guys don't know the definition of "wrong." The point of the article was to compare the hybrid and see if its higher price could be compensated for with its fuel efficiency. The answer is no - as shown in the article. I mentioned many other factors for consideration, including value retention, tax breaks and many others, but they do not prove my calculations wrong. The numbers you provided are dubious and unsupported. How can you expect anyone to take them seriously? Empty claims don't get anyone anywhere.
How many math related issues? None. Issues not included? One. Problems with assumptions? Lots.
Thus, a proper critique would not be "MATH is Wrong" but "assumptions could be more reflective of real life," "assumptions should be more obvious and not in footnote" or "I would set the problem up differently." Not that your suggestions aren't well taken - but really, NTDWM.
Nest topic: The cost-of-money approach is a valid approach for businesses and I considered it. The fact that I chose not to use it does not make my analysis incorrect or even less representative of personal finances (I actually think it is more so).
However, your unsupported, unexplained and speculative analysis is exactly the kind of hype that I wrote the article to debunk. It may be correct, it may not. The important thing is that for anyone to find out they'd have to figure out and perform the analysis completely on their own - or just take your word for it. I don't doubt that you have some economic knowledge, but I'm not one to just accept someones claims because they spit them out. I suggest you write something detailed and supported and put it out there for the world to critique. It'd be harder on your brain, but you and anyone who reads what you wrote would get a lot more out of it - and it would rid the world of one more hype-source.
Btw, have you considered commenting on the article at the source? It's a smaller environment over there, but I kind of like that as the comments don't get lost in the sea of 1000...
First, I'm the author of the article, so we can stop talking about me in third person. Second, I define the scope of my article and proceed accordingly. You may think the scope is too limited, but even if true that does not "make [the] math wrong." Third, you are correct that there are many different ways to obtain cash to buy a new car without a loan. However, their existence has nothing to do with the accuracy of the math inside the stated scope.
Your ideas for further research are nice, but they don't make the math included in the article wrong. The article specifically states (footnote 21) that only comparison only covers the life of the loan. Within the stated scope, the math is correct. I suggest you write the follow up article that contains the economic analysis you suggest. OmniNerd has a nice article collaboration tool you could use. Then maybe you'd be quoted on /. instead of stuck making unsupported accusations of bad math and repeat hype-speak.
I don't think you read the article.