Talk:Usage share of web browsers/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Usage share of web browsers. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

mobile numbers twice

I added netapp numbers. They are wrong like statcounter because mobile numbers are in there twice. Netapp changed the way they report and now report them similar to statcounter. If someone wants to fix it, that would be cool. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I fixed netapp and statcounter for August. Todo: fix other months. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 06:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

incorrect data on data statics for site w3counter

just was comparing the growth of different browsers across different sites and noticed for some reason some of the overall stats seemed to be different then what is on the websites referenced. not sure if there was a reason or not but the w3counter site shows a higher usage for chrome and firefox then is indicated here and a lot lower usage of Internet explorer. im not sure what other stats may be wrong but Im certain the stats on there are wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.85.118 (talk) 11:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The W3Counter table on wikipedia and the numbers on W3Counter's website are identical. 108.16.219.54 (talk) 22:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)Dan Grossman

Broken StatCounter tables

The StatCounter and StatCounter Mobile tables appear to be completely broken (tested in IE, Chrome and FF, so it's not a browser rendering issue)? The tables are unreadable as-is, I presume this isn't deliberate? Psdie (talk) 14:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I removed the sortable attribute which seems to have resolved the issue. What do you think about the discussion above? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedia table complexity

I have just updated the Wikimedia table, adding July's figures. I found it a very intricate and complex task, involving mental arithmetic to get the 'Total's for Opera and Safari. I was frustrated by the time I got near the end and found the column labelled 'Mobile, Other'. Other than what? By opening a spreadsheet, a copy of the article unedited, and a copy of the Wikimedia stats for June, I was able to reverse-engineer that it is the Mobile figure (given in our next column, with a spurious final zero added in the second decimal place) minus the mobile figures for Opera and Safari as well as the figure for Android. I followed the pattern dutifully.

When I got to adding the latest Wikimedia figures to the summary table at the top, I understood the relevance of the mental arithmetic regarding Opera and Safari - this is necessary to get totals for the summary - but I have not found any use for the 'Mobile, Other' figure. In order to encourage others to make the effort and help keep this page up to date, I propose removing the 'Mobile, Other' column from the Wikimadia table.

Finally, I wonder why we now have four summary tables in the Summary table section. Would three be enough, with a rolling deletion of the fourth when the first is complete? --Nigelj (talk) 17:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

If you'd rather not enter the "other mobile", then you could leave it blank. I find the data useful and I suspect readers do too. Thanks for entering the rest of the info. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, agree its best to delete "other mobile" now. Trying to minimize the work. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

September calculations

FYI: here is the spreadsheet I used for september calcs: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AoB_APc2D9MsdDdad3Z5Z3BwenpsSzN4NFdtTU9XUlE&hl=en_US# . Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

160 million users for opera vs +200 million for Chrome

I find it interesting that Opera claims 160 million users while google claims more than 200 million users for chrome. Although the usage stats have chrome at 5 times more usage. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Opera's users are mostly mobile users ("the vast majority using Opera Mini"). Mobile users don't go to as many sites as desktop users, so the usage share for mobile browsers is not proportional to the number of users. Mozilla claims over 400 million users, so I would say Chrome has about 400 million also. -- Schapel (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Web should be capitalized?

Usage share of Web browsers -- with Web capitalized because it's a noun? In the phrase web browser, web is an adjective. What kind of browser? A web browser. -- Schapel (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 00:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Statcounter and ipod

On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 5:13 AM, StatCounter Global Stats <globalstats@...com> wrote:

Hi Daniel,

6.3% refers to the iPod Touch and *not* to the iPad.

The iPad does *not* meet our definition of a "mobile device" and is *not* therefore included in our Mobile Browser stats at all.

The iPod and iPhone *do* meet our definition and are both included in our Mobile Browser stats.

StatCounter Global Stats

http://gs.statcounter.com/ http://twitter.com/statcountergs

-----Original Message-----
From: "Daniel Cardenas" <daniel...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, 19 February, 2011 04:32 
To: "StatCounter Global Stats" <globalstats@....com>
Subject: Ipod touch 6.3% of usage? Perhaps it is more likely ipad?

http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_browser-ww-monthly-201102-201102-bar

Hi,

Ipod touch 6.3% of usage? Perhaps it is more likely ipad?

Thanks, Daniel 20:22, 26 February 2011‎ (UTC)

Jan 2011 Bar chart does not match the key

a little consistency please :) key says IE ~43% char is 46% —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.125.57.52 (talk) 12:20, 2 March 2011‎ (UTC)

"multiply the desktop percent from "mobile vs. desktop" by each desktop browser"

Apparently, the note under the StatCounter table is very important to understand our in-house maths. However, I do not understand the phrase above: I don't mean to be unnecessarily pedantic, but I don't know how to multiply a "percent" by a "desktop browser". Or why. --Nigelj (talk) 08:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know how to explain it, but this is for statcounter and Netapp. Lets say that desktop and Mobile browsers account for 50% of the browser share each. Then desktop browser share is reported as 30% for red, 25% for yellow, and 40% for green. Mobile browser share is reported as 33% for orange, blue, and purple. It is somewhat wrong to put these on the same row and say they add up to 200%. So what you have to do is multiply by the desktop or mobile share and then put them in the same row. Wikipedia reports correct percentage so no manipulation needed there. What do you think? Thanks for addressing this issue. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

To use the actual numbers from August:

Desktop is 100%-7.12% = 92.88%. So multiply the desktop numbers by 92.88%
Mobile number is 7.12%. Multiply the mobile percent by 7.12%.

Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I added desktop and mobile for statcounter. The numbers add up to:
38.91% + 25.53% + 21.51% + 6.19% + 3.09% + 1.4% + 2.8% = 99.43%
The small percentage that is missing is because we don't report desktop other. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I could use some feedback for motivation. Do you guys like it? Do you hate it? Should I continue, stop, change direction? Thanks, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 03:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I understand what you're doing now. I think we could improve the explanation in the note a little more. How about changing

To get the desktop number multiply what Statcounter reports by desktop% as reported in desktop vs. mobile. To get the mobile number multiply Statcounter browser percentage by mobile %

into

For consistency, each StatCounter desktop browser share has been reduced by multiplying it by the current overall desktop share. Similarly, mobile browser shares have each been multiplied by the overall mobile percentage.^[1].

This assumes we can use a formatted 'ref' within a 'note'. I haven't tested that, but if it fails we can use the existing 'bare link' format on the italicised terms (in which case they probably don't need to be italicised)--Nigelj (talk) 11:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I looked at new tables for August (for statcounter and netapp), and they look visually confusing. IMO clamping Desktop/Mobile as a subheader makes it harder to read.Wikiolap (talk) 04:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting keeping desktop and mobile separate so that table is easier to read? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 05:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think keeping desktop and mobile stats separate will make it easier to comprehend. Also, dynamics of desktop and mobile are very different - the dominant player in desktop (IE) is nowhere found in mobile, and vice versa (Safari).Wikiolap (talk) 02:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the right thing to do is have different tables. One with the numbers combined, and one set with them apart. I'll create the combined one, which to me represents the true share. Other's can create the separated tables. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 14:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking the "desktop" statcounter table shouldn't be normalized for mobile. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers#StatCounter_.28July_2008_to_present.29 Do you agree? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 06:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I reverted those changes. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 04:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Message from w3counter about "other"

Subject: Why doesn't w3counter's global stats report add up to 100%?

On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Dan Grossman <dan@w3counter...> wrote:

   There is no other information available. Sure you can post my response.

   On 10/5/2011 6:02 PM, Daniel Cardenas wrote:

       Are the other browsers info available publicly?  Can I post your
       response at the discussion list of wikipedia usage share of web
       browsers?

       On 10/5/11, Dan Grossman<dan@w3counter...>  wrote:

           Because there are more than 5 web browsers. There are several hundred
           different families each with less than 1% market share.

           Kind regards,
           Dan Grossman
           w3counter.com

           On 10/5/2011 5:14 PM, Daniel Cardenas wrote:

               August: 35.4%   26.7%   20.2%   6.2%    2.3%            9.2% missing

               Thanks,
               Daniel 17:59, 9 October 2011‎ (UTC)

Undercounting privacy-conscious users

The following is original research, but surely could be sourced by someone with the time to do it?

Many users block data-miners and stat-counters. One common method is by blocking the JavaScript often used by such. So these users don't get counted at all.

Various browsers have varied capability in JS-blocking. Probably the most *selective* (enabling the site you're on, while blocking third-parties such as stat counters, is NoScript, supported by the Mozilla-based browsers Firefox and SeaMonkey.

So it seems intuitively that Firefox, especially, is going to be under-counted by approximately the number of NoScript users. NoScript runs surrogate script that returns no data to these counters, but satisfies a page's requirement to run these counters. (SeaMonkey's market share is much lower, and probably wouldn't affect the overall picture.)

IE and Chrome won't block these, especially since Chrome's owner, Google, makes a living by selling (mostly-targeted) advertising, and also by selling data.

Add all this up, and what one finds in many of the article's charts are the most popular browsers used by *non-privacy-conscious* users. The steady decline of Firefox in the charts might be partly or substantially due to the increase in NoScript users.

I wish I had the time to do all the proper sourcing and citations for this. Just browsed to the article, and realized this issue. I hope someone who does have the time will raise this issue in the article. It's a very plausible explanation for significant under-counting of Firefox and other Mozilla browsers. Thanks. Unimaginative Username (talk) 11:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

   Hm.  Yeah, Looking for stuff that might screw up tracking sites on addons.mozilla.org ...
   9,437,225 AdBlock Plus users
   1,456,501 NoScript users
     267,844 User Agent Switcher  (I know I often forget to switch back UA after switching it)
      37,454 Cookie Monster users
       8,077 User Agent RG

wp:or

I feel like removing the wp:or tag because of this comment. Let me know what you think. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 04:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

No, the dispute is ongoing. The comment does indeed support that the median can be considered "simple" - but that's a professional opinion not an opinion on Wikipedia policies. Useerup (talk) 06:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/13_November_2011/Usage_share_of_operating_systems#Removing_the_median_until_dispute_has_been_resolved. The median must be deleted until dispute is resolved. Do *not* re-add the median Useerup (talk) 06:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Summary table proposal: Only use stat sites that break out mobile usage

There is a proposal on cabal to only show the stat sites on the summary table that break out mobile browsers. Let us know what you think of that. Thanks, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 04:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Pie Chart

The pie chart is not nice as 3d ones are especially hard to read. there was a discussion of this long ago which is why it ended up as a bar chart. Can we switch back for readabilities sake - Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.74.74.94 (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Limit summary table to those stat sites that break out mobile

There was a proposal here to only list stats in the summary that break out mobile. I plan to remove the sites that don't have mobile unless there is significant concerns and or objections raised here. Thanks, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Chrome surpassing Firefox update

I've read that Chrome recently overtook Firefox. This is kind of a big deal, at least as far as this page is concerned. Updates? 128.187.0.183 (talk) 01:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

You can see in the tables that this is true only for StatCounter, and the article already contains this information. What do you think needs to be updated? -- Schapel (talk) 13:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I thought that it was a more general consensus, but I am no expert. I guess it will come out more clearly after the December numbers come in. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.8.95.64 (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Opera market share error

I think it should be noted that Opera 11.50 (June 28, 2011) had 34 million downloads within 8 days ( http://www.linuxnov.com/opera-12-pre-alpha-wahoo-released-changelog/ ), whereas Firefox 4 (March 22, 2011) had around 40 million downloads total (despite being regarded by many as the biggest update in Firefox's history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.95.13.144 (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

This article is about how often a web browser is used to browse the web. Not how often it is downloaded. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 23:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Would it not follow that browsers that are downloaded often are more likely to be used (especially since a major build of FF that would have had more people downloading it than a normal build as people wanted to check it out was barely downloaded more than a minor change to Opera)? It is suspected that Opera's usage is grossly under reported as it often masks as IE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.96.178 (talk) 04:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Would be good if you had a reference for that. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 04:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Not sure, but this might be what he is talking about http://www.opera.com/support/kb/view/843/ Personally, mine identifies to all sites as IE unless I specifically state otherwise. Charwinger21 (talk) 05:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I download new versions of every browser as it comes out for testing, but do all my browsing in Chrome. Since Opera is known to be the most standards compliant browser, it probably gets a ton of 'testing' downloads. I've also been known to download the same thing 3 or 4 times, either because I've got issues or I'm loading multiple computers. So no, doesn't follow. 72.52.96.11 (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Increasing size of Statcounter graph

For readability reasons. Right now you have to click on it to read what it actually says. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering and change thumbnail size to 300px. I don't agree that a stale image should go ahead of one that is more current. Please revert your change. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 02:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Consensus on median in summary

wp:No original research states that a wp:routine calculation should have wp:consensus. Would like to poll and discuss to see if there is consensus. Also note that wikipedia doesn't wp:vote on issues.

Issue	Arguments For	Arguments Against
Simple and routine	The following was written by Richard D. Gill on the Cabal page: Editor Useerup contacted me on my talk page about this issue (I'm a university professor of mathematical statistics). I see nothing terribly wrong in giving the median of a collection of numbers as a simple (easily understood) summary statistic of central location. The numbers in question can't be usefully thought of as a sample from some population, so their median can't be thought of as an estimate of the median of the population, but so what? The median is very simply calculated and one can imagine that many readers would like to see it, so adding it to the table does those readers a service. Half of the sources have smaller numbers, half have larger. Easy to understand, unpretentious. ...<snip>... Richard Gill (talk) 01:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)	Each of these issues will be discussed in separate rows: Not simple because the median of a set of percentages may not add up to 100%. Numbers not comparable because it may not add up to 100% and people expect it to add up to 100%. Wikipedia is not in the business of approximations. Misquoted as actual usage share other WP articles.
1: Not simple because the median of a set of percentages may not add up to 100%.	It is still the median value of the reported share. That it may not add to 100% is not an overriding concern. It is not possible to get a number outside of the reported usage.	A percentage means out of 100. With this method if the results are rescaled to 100 it is entirely possible to get a figure outside the range of its sources. Actually Percentage does not strictly mean "out of 100" - its a way if expressing a rate of fraction "per 100". Medians often do not add up to 100% but its understandable that this can cause confusion to "the general public"
2: Numbers not comparable because they are derived by different methods and can mean different things.		Basically getting median of numbers of apples and grapes and calling it the median number of fruit.
3: Wikipedia is not in the business of approximations. The median is an approximation of usage share since it is the central tendency of the reported sources.		Policy WP:OR basically says we should not make up our own results. The median is only an approximation as far as the sources are representative. The sources do not sample the same population (and they use different methodology) and any attempt to present the median as the approximation or central tendency of "the population" is a misrepresentation. There is no population.
4: Misquoted as actual usage share other WP articles.	Fix the misquotes and add notes to median.	Plus any newspaper that cares to quote us.
5. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, the content policy of WP:NOT#Content says 'In any encyclopaedia, information cannot be included solely for being true or useful."	The examples for WP:NOT#Content do not apply here. WP:LEAD does.	Richard Gill's idea about providing the figures because they might be easy and useful though they have little intrinsic meaning is not in line with the basic aim of providing verifiable information.
6. The graphics based on these do not show the variability and imply spurious accuracy.	Useerup should add his graphic to the article.	Useerup showed a graphic with all the figures in and it showed the variability between the different surveys much better. This sort of thing shows how the results were compiled by different methods and show different thing.
7. The median is needed because people are too stupid and we need to spoon feed them. Anyway that's my paraphrase of the main argument I've seen for keeping the median, feel free to improve.	Absurd issue / comment. WP:NOTSTATSBOOK
8. Weighted Average should be used - each source should be weighted with it's statistical size (How many samples in the experiment). The meaning of this result is simpler, like union of all samples from all source together to one source.		There is noticeable different between median and average, and median is less popular. Average is more intuitive factor to understand the bottom line.

Feel free to edit the table above with pro and con arguments and or enter your comments below. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 01:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Added issues 5,6,7 Dmcq (talk) 13:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments

I see both proposed views (mean and median) as providing useful information to users, why can we not have both a "median" and "mean" row at the bottom (possibly with a slightly off gray bgcolor to separate them from readings) and give the reader complete coverage, surely this can't complicate things too much nor is it hard for the reader to comprehend. 72.241.135.189 (talk) 03:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

We're not in the business of making up things even if we think it might be useful, see the very first sentence of WP:NOT#Content. Dmcq (talk) 12:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors are required to summarize content, see wp:lead, required to paraphrase, etc... The median is a way of summarizing the content. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The article doesn't summarize any of this in the lead anyway so I don't see why you quote that, not that a lead should use invented information any more tan the body of an article should. Dmcq (talk) 09:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Summarize by selection not by synthesis. Median is not summarizing; it is a calculation and creates a new viewpoint not supported by any single source. That is the very definition of original research. You are creating a logical fallacy when you try to re-label median as "summarizing". There is a reason for WP:CALC Useerup (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Support Median

Support - Its a very simple and straitforward calc. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Support. The calculation is intended as a summary, to free the readers from the need to do some calculation themselves in order to understand what the sources say. It is like a kind of illustration just in text form, so WP:OR doesn't apply. 1exec1 (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Support. --188.10.90.52 (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Support. What was the outcome to the OS usage share debate on the same issue? I stopped following it once it started to be dispersed on several pages. Jdm64 (talk) 20:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I believe the two issues are tied together. Thanks, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Have you alerted the original participants that you are performing a poll?--Useerup (talk) 06:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Nope. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 07:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Support. This is a trivial 'calculation' that provides a useful summary for both the web browser figures here, and the OS figures elsewhere. The row of medians is not a data row in its own right (it is a collection of the medians of each data column); it does not add up to 100%, and so care must be taken not to treat it as if it were another data row and further summarise the summaries, e.g. they should not be displayed in a pie chart. It could be displayed as a bar chart, but it is probably safer to display charts of actual data from individual sources, labelled as such. Glancing across the medians may help editors decide which of the sources provides or is closest to key medians, for promotion into the lede (as a chart, complete with identifying caption) on any given month, if a lede image is desirable. --Nigelj (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
See WP:USEFUL in arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Plus even safer is not to produce badly flawed figures in the first place. Dmcq (talk) 08:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
His argument was not about usefulness, but about summary. See WP:NOTSTATSBOOK: Wikipedia should summarize the data. 1exec1 (talk) 00:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it's a summary that people find useful. Where is the logic in saying, "He said useful! That makes his opinion irrelevant?!" This isn't a child's game where words have magic meanings defined in WP:ESSAYS. --Nigelj (talk) 10:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Support. The teaching of medians and means is a standard part of the British maths curriculum (I cannot comment about other countries). Provided that the figures are collected in a reliable manner, I see no harm in publishing the median value - in many cases it is more valuable than the mean value, while in others publishing the mean and median alongside each other gives the astute reader a feel for the skewness of the distribution. Martinvl (talk) 09:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Support. An incredibly basic and standard bit of mathematics. It is in no way original research. Bilrand (talk) 23:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Support. Agree this is pretty basic. I don't understand why this is such a controversial topic. scottjduffy (talk) 11:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Support. Although I understand the "fear" that this don't show a global stat, I don't believe that it harms Wikipedia. The fact is: most pages don't cite Wikipedia - they cite netapplications and thus the whole discussion is a bit out of focus. mabdul 17:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
If most pages cite Net Applications, we should cite Net Applications. (It's a toss-up between Net Applications and Statcounter). NPOV asks us to reflect majority usage. Clicky, w3counter and Wikimedia are rarely (with Wikimedia possibly never) used counts. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Can someone show actual evidence of the fact that NetApplications is cited most widely? Even if this proves true, as far as I can remember, there are at least several sufficiently reliable pages citing each of the sources we currently use. So, per WP:DUE we should at least mention them all. 1exec1 (talk) 19:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
It's disappointing that you didn't try to look yourself first. Google News results for measure plus "browser":
Net Applications gets 3540

statcounter gets 1670

and the rest get bugger all.

I haven't heard from anyone supporting the median why we should treat each of these measures as equally valid given that some are clearly more accepted than others, nor anyone tackle the apples and oranges problem. The calculation itself is very simple - but that's really not the point. One doesn't discover the median height of a human by taking the average height of the US, the average height of the US and Europe, the average height of the US and Europe when jumping four times over, and the average height in the world dependent on CIA sources and your own range of busines clients, and seeing which height is in the middle of that.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I haven't seen anyone suggesting that each of the measures is equally valid. In my comment about the wisdom of the crowd, I explain why it actually can make sense to take the median of measurements from different populations and consider that an estimate of the median of an actual value. Can you provide a source and detailed explanation of why your example won't result in the median height of a human? All I see is people claiming it without evidence, whereas I provide examples of where taking the median of lots of poor guesses works very well in practice. Taking the median of fairly accurate measurements should work even better. -- Schapel (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

By following these links I get the opposite: 57 for "Net applications" and 289 for "Statcounter". Maybe you receive highly personalized results or have additional settings enabled (I don't supply cookies to google)? Could someone else recheck the links? 1exec1 (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
For Schapel - do you really think that taking a median from an unjustified set of measures, most of which are heavily weighted towards the two tallest continents in the world we get either a good picture of global human height or one that is commonly cited? Sounds like bad stats to me. Furthermore, would you really want to use how high one can jump as a good proxy for relative height? Over half of all Americans are overweight, with a third obese - this would screw up the data. Again, it would be bad stats. One has to look not at generalised descriptions of data (such as "browser usage" and "around the world") but how such concepts are operationalised.

As for wanting a link - the only example I can think of someone trying to aggregate poor data in order to improve it is the "race realist" J. Philippe Rushton, who uses such an approach as part of his attempts to show that black people are stupid and have too many kids with no thought of tomorrow. You'll find criticism of this approach at Race, Evolution, and Behavior#Validity of the data and the methodology of aggregating the data. I certainly don't mean to associate you with his views; on the contrary, once you look at data which you're very probably rather less attached to, perhaps you'll see the problem - and also how serious academics have savaged the approach.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

For 1exec1 - my apologies - in trying to cut away the crap from the web address the google search was producing, I took out the code for "archives". Set the google news date search to "archives" (left hand side of the page) and you'll get the full results. I'm on a different network from yesterday and I get the same results. People here seriously really need to read WP:NPOV. The first line says "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." This means we should not give undue weight to browser counts that few or none use. The Wikimedia stats are interesting given that this is Wikipedia, but they should not be part of any representation of global stats, as very probably no independent reliable source refers to them as a measure of general web usage. Only Statcounter and Net Applications turn up on google news. A Google trends measure reveals the same over the whole of google's internet reach. NPOV is not a trivial consideration - it's one of the core principles of the project.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
No problem, later I found that archives produce your data. However, I'm not convinced that WP:RS mostly refer to NetApplication for the following reasons:
GoogleNews produce vastly different results for different timespans. For example 57 for "Net applications" and 289 for "Statcounter" for the last month would imply that "Statcounter" is a better source for us, especially since we use most recent figures in the article.

GoogleNews not necessarily represents reliable sources well (it only considers news sources, thus a bias is apparent). Checking regular Google search again produces very different results: 20.1 millions for "Statcounter" statistics, 4.2 millions for "Net applications" statistics, 2.9 millions for "W3counter" statistics, 51.9 millions for "wikimedia" statistics, 0.4 millions for "statowl" statistics, 66.9 millions for "clicky" statistics (I also get similar ratios for browser statistics instead of statistics). I have no reasons to believe that across such large sample sizes, WP:RS shouldn't be distributed in similar ratios. Thus I think that it would be a bigger WP:OR to select one method over another in order to select one source over the others, than by showing several sources, providing all sources with notices what they measure (to address WP:NPOV) and a median for illustrative purposes. 1exec1 (talk) 14:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I'm glad you've grasped the point of NPOV - reflecting prevalence in RS, rather than giving equal space to minority and obscure views. We're almost on the same page.

As for the "bias" in google news: you may not be aware of this, but the internet in general is not considered a reliable means of assessing prevalence in RS on wikipedia. Google News, scholar and books do all have a "bias": towards featuring reliable, oversighted sources over promotional, fanboi and fringe sites, unmoderated blogs and discussion sites and so on. That's why on Wikipedia we actively prefer using those google services rather than the general one to establish things like notability, article titles and due weight.

Your search terms aren't particularly efficient. An alarm bell really should have rung when "Wikimedia" statistics came out top - I trust you are open to hearing alarm bells, and not simply pretending to look at the evidence. Try the same searches with "browser share" (in quotes) and you'll see Statcounter and Net Applications come out far and away the most used compared to the others. I'm open to your suggestions of other, more efficient search terms for cutting out irrelevant hits. As I commented below, perhaps it is better that we have both Net Applications and Stat Counter in the lede, as it illustrates the results from different approaches to the usage share question. It doesn't mislead the reader into thinking there's a single approach.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
That is not an issue IMO. The issue that selecting one method is OR. Can you provide any evidence that selecting one of "XX statistics", "XX browser statistics", "XX "browser share"" is not OR? Why not "XX "browser market share""? 1exec1 (talk) 14:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Could you instead cite which part of WP:OR it would contravene? It's not exactly logical to ask someone to disprove something that you haven't even taken the time to describe. I'm surprised that you don't think search terms are an issue. I thought you knew about the internet - my mistake.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
No, exactly the opposite, the search terms are the problem. From your answer I conclude that you agree that search terms and generally any method (that involves large number of RS) to evaluate browser stat engines involves certain level of OR. Do you confirm, so that we have common ground to argue further? 1exec1 (talk) 16:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
No. If you genuinely haven't managed to understand NPOV policies by now, I don't fancy my own chances at successfully explaining them to you. Either way, it's a waste of my time dealing with you further.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Here we are to build consensus. If you don't have effort to gain consensus, why I should take this your comment seriously "You don't appear to be making an active effort to take into account other editors' legitimate concerns. If you could address that oversight, it might help things.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC) "? I am not deliberately misunderstanding or something. My concern is quite well summarized in a comment that is (currently) at the end of the talk page 1exec1 (talk) 16:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Support. Median is very straightforward calculation. It summarizes the data reported by the sources. It can in no way be original research - it's easily verifiable and produces no new information that cann't be derived from the data. 118.112.185.66 (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Support the median as a simple and straightforward calculation that helps readers understand the properly sourced material already on the page—but it's got to be properly labeled (footnote?) as being the median of the data in this particular table, not the One True™ Median. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
An example of such notice is suggested at the Apples, oranges, ... section of the talk. See if you like it. 1exec1 (talk) 14:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Support as the only adequate way to make the information about the user agents statistics useful to date. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Median

Oppose. To me this is an OR issue. First the median is one of an arbitrary number of possible measures, and the first tell tale sign we are doing research is that we are making a choice about which measure is the most appropriate. Similarly, the data sets are not comparable, they are collected in different ways and measure different things. (For example, Some use CIA adjusted data while other entries use raw data, etc). Thus it doesn't make a lot of sense to compare them in this way. Thenub314 (talk) 05:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Oppose We should not be making up our own results just reporting what others have said. The median does not add anything meaningful and there's better alternatives for the graphic. We should leave it to people out there to do something if it is useful and then report it rather than make up our own 'useful' figures. Dmcq (talk) 12:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. Median is WP:OR both under WP:CALC and under WP:SYN (synthesis over multiple sources). Median numbers are misleading (sum of medians will never add up to 100% and thus cannot be usefully thought of as "shares" of anything). Median numbers are being quoted by other articles as the usage share - which they are not. Medians conveys the idea that a central tendency is relevant, even though the sources are picked by WP editors and do not represent global usage share or any other useful "tendency". --Useerup (talk) 21:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. (here from NOR board) While calculating a median would - in my view - be acceptable under WP:CALC, this is a misapplication of its use that is WP:OR and generally very problematic. The OR comes in our selection of measures from which we draw the median. Why these particular measures? Why do we - by using a median - give them equal value? Are they all seen in RS as equally valid and reliable, or are some preferred to others? (How many RS use Wikimedia stats, for example, compared to Net Applications or Stat Counter?) A general problem also comes in these not measuring the same populations, nor the same things. For example, Wikimedia is not the whole internet, nor is it a random sample of the internet, and there is no reason to suppose that users to Wikimedia organisations are representative of the internet. Two sources measure unique hits, others measure visits. One measure is adjusted for estimated country internet use, while others are not. My strong preference for the lede would be to choose the most commonly used source, with a footnote that other measures are also used. Taking the median makes no sense to me here.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
So to you it would make more sense to choose one of the stat sites that doesn't random sample and manipulates the numbers? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Er, no. My criterion was quite clear: "the most commonly used source". This meets NPOV. But it's good to see you now understand that these sites are not in practice measuring the same thing. In that light, perhaps you might review your support for this misapplication of statistics? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
You fail to understand that none of the sites practice random sampling. Perhaps you might review your support for this misapplication of statistics? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 01:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
The point about "random sample" is not that the stats should all be random samples. You're taking the Wikimedia stats as representative of general Internet use - a very limited sample of Internet traffic - but based on what principle? In what way are you establishing representativeness? (other stats do this by taking a broad inclusive range of high volume sites) It's clearly a biased sample. You call my support for using one source only a "misapplication of statistics". If you think each of the most commonly used major stats sources misapplies statistics, bring that to the table, rather than take an average of sources you apparently consider to be seriously flawed. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
"broad inclusive range of high volume sites" - hmmm, yeah right. Where did you pull that from? All the stats sites are bias. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 03:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
All the stats sites are bias. Exactly! And the median - unlike what someone here naively assumes - will not erase that bias. For the median to express anything useful about a population (internet usage), the samples must be drawn from the same population (internet usage). In that case the median can be used to erase sampling error. But none of the sources sample the same population and they use very different methodologies at that. The only thing a median could express is that it is the median of the sources. But then it loses every value it could have to readers - who will almost all of them assume that the median express the central tendency of the internet usage population. The ignorance displayed here about these basic statistical principles is the very reason that WP:CALC requires consensus for a calculation to be allowed in. While the calculation itself is simple, the selection of sources, it's applicability and not least the interpretation of the result is anything but straightforward. The sources are all biased and they sample different populations. --Useerup (talk) 09:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Can you cite a source and explain in more detail this idea of taking the median from different populations not erasing the bias? I have heard that when you ask a crowd of people to estimate the number of gumballs in a container, most individual people give inaccurate (biased) answers. However, by taking the median of these biased guesses, you get a very accurate result. Here is an anecdote that confirms this story. It seems to me that if we have a bunch of measurements of the usage share of browsers, taking the median will result in a more accurate answer than picking a random one, or even the most cited one. Does the fact that one measurement is biased towards large sites, and one is biased towards European sites, and the others are biased in other ways, mean that the median will not become close to the actual value as the number of measurements increases? If so, what is the explanation for the wisdom of the crowd? -- Schapel (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
There is ignorance in those that don't believe renowned professor of statistics on the usefulness. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Oppose per VsevolodKrolikov. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Oppose on the grounds that it is not an accurate representation of actual browser market share.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Closing the poll?

When can we consider this poll closed?--Useerup (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Usual length of such polls is one month. 1exec1 (talk) 21:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Closing the poll: No consensus

The debate has now been quiet for a good while and the poll was opened 1 month ago.

Time to draw the conclusion that no consensus was reached. The median is a calculation across multiple sources and even if it could be considered simple, it requires consensus under WP:CALC. The median is gone. Useerup (talk) 06:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

As of now there is a vote result with 2:1 ratio in favor of keeping median. Per WP:CONSENSUS this can be supposed to prove that the consensus is to keep median. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

No.--Useerup (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, then I don't know what the point of the poll is, if just one person spends the whole time trying to close it (see below) and refusing to acknowledge the result and the counterarguments. --Nigelj (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

You might have noticed before that for Useerup everything means what he wants regardless of the real meaning. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

You may want to read wp:consensus. Hint: It is not a majority vote. When there are still a number of editors who have objections which have not been addressed, there is no consensus. It really is that simple: You can have consensus either way, but you can also have lack of consensus. And that's what we have here. --Useerup (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

~~Conclusion: No consensus~~
~~This was the opening statement of this poll:~~
wp:No original research states that a wp:routine calculation should have wp:consensus. Would like to poll and discuss to see if there is consensus. Also note that wikipedia doesn't wp:vote on issues.
~~It is obvious from the above discussion that there is no consensus on the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Useerup (talk • contribs) 06:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)~~
I don't think we should have a section where people express their opinions while the poll is still open. In other words, I'd prefer if this section was blanked, including this comment, until the poll is closed. --Nigelj (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
~~No, nothing is obvious yet. There is no conclusion. Please wait until the poll ends 1exec1 (talk) 23:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)~~
I think the premise of this poll is flawed. Routine calculations, that is, arithmetic, requires consensus according to WP:NOR. According to Richard Gill, finding the median does not involve arithmetic. If this is the case, then no consensus is even necessary. -- Schapel (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Also I think the above poll is good enough consensus. Someone external to the conversation should summarize. From wp:consensus:
"... "Consensus" on Wikipedia does not mean that decisions must be unanimous (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); it is not a vote either. It means, rather, that the decision-making process involves an active effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting community norms. ..."

Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 00:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
You don't appear to be making an active effort to take into account other editors' legitimate concerns. If you could address that oversight, it might help things.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Which concerns? Or is this another of your oversights? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 03:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Have you ever read our policy on NPOV, Daniel?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

He may be not involved into the discussion, but your concerns are reasonably addressed. Please see above posts. 1exec1 (talk) 14:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry you don't get to decide. And as far as wikipedia polls go, this one is yes for consensus. Need to request an external party to make the summary. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 07:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

take it to mediation or a noticeboard then. But the wp:burden is on you to demonstrate that you have consensus. Until then the median is kept out.--Useerup (talk) 07:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Take it where you want. Read wp:consensus and realize there is consensus as wikipedia defines it. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 08:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

2-thirds is not consensus here. I've opened an RfC below.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Mobile vs Desktop data

I propose to separate desktop and mobile data. This has many advantages:

We don't have to correct numbers from our sources
Sum of percentages should be always 100% with no complicated calcs
Desktop and Mobile are two different markets, with different browsers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subver (talk • contribs) 14:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Easier to manage
Easier to read

Subver (talk) 14:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

support this proposal. We should not "correct" the numbers of a source by using numbers from another source. That is WP:SYN. For the sources which do break out mobile share I could accept re-scaling the desktop shares, provided they are unambiguous. That would not be a calculation involving numbers from other sources and would be simple enough to pass WP:CALC. It would still require a note though, as a reader cannot directly verify the number at the source. --Useerup (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems here the numbers, provided by the source are scaled according to the split reported by the same source. Don't think it's all that bad. That said, I object manipulating one source's data with another one's. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

So, you didn't realize that manipulating one source's data with another one's is exactly what is going on here? The numbers of NetApplications for desktop browsers have been "reduced" by the current overall desktop share. All done to facilitate computing medians on numbers which did not allow such computation. How do you feel about that? --Useerup (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The sources that don't provide this data freely, manipulate the data. They charge extra for the unmanipulated data. In other words there are references for the data you believe to be manipulated, but you just have to pay to see it. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

My proposal:

Usage share of desktop browsers for December 2011
Source	Internet Explorer	Chrome	Firefox	Safari	Opera	Other
Statcounter	38.7%	27.3%	25.3%	6.1%	2.0%	0.6%
Net Applications	51.9%	19.1%	21.8%	5.0%	1.7%	0.5%
W3Counter	31.2%	23.8%	25.5%	6.3%	2.6%	10.6%
Clicky	40.0%	25.0%	24.5%	9.2%	1.3%	0.0%
Wikimedia	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX

Usage share of mobile browsers for December 2011
Source	Safari	Opera	Android Broswer	Nokia Browser	BlackBerry Browser	Other
Statcounter	22.2%	22.2%	18.2%	15.3%	11.3%	10.8%
Net Applications	53.3%	21.7%	15.9%	3.3%	3.1%	2.7%
Wikimedia	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX	XX

Notes:

(Wikimedia data is not yet available for December.)
The sum of each row will be always 100%
The data is reported without modifications by all sources (except Wikimedia)
There is no need of any note
Median can be added depending on the result of above discussion.

Subver (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really sure the tables are needed without median-like summary. It may make more sense to present results for each source in its section. This would give a side benefit of providing more evident history of changes. As a side effect, it will eliminate any need for sources recalculations. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I think a table summary is fine and should be kept. Only the last month (or 2 last). The complete trends can be seen in single source section. Monthly NetApplications section should be added. Subver (talk) 17:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

These tables provide no summary. They give exactly the same information which is available without them. Without numerical summary they are just clutter violating WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

In fact the goal of summaries is not adding information but show it in a synthetic way.Subver (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The goal of summaries is to facilitate understanding. If the data can't be summarized with a median, throwing it together in a table is also unacceptable. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Who says we have to use a median? How about a mean?Jasper Deng (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The mean makes things worse regarding the bias issues with a benefit of making values sum up to 100%. For me it's a clear loss. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

So do you agree to separate mobile/desktop stats (apart from the median issue) ?
Support:

Subver (talk) 12:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
mabdul 00:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC), although I don't see the point in discussion a totally unrelated problem: what is about the mean/median? to the proposed tables: Why is other wikilinked? Why is not explained that other containing a minority of desktop browser and mobile browser?
Support splitting the tables. Oppose mean (it's arguably worse than the median). The less we depend on calculations and the more we can refer directly to the sources, the better. --Useerup (talk) 12:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
This table is better than the previous complicated tables. --계정명뭘로하지 (talk) 06:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

The question of user agent stats should be discussed altogether, not in parts. This way we just make the discussion run forever. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
What about using the above tables for now (excluding Wikimedia)? We are very outdated (september)... Subver (talk) 14:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I have no objections for using these tables for now if it leads to update of data. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok I have seen no objections for using these tables "for now". So I'm going to update the tables. Subver (talk) 09:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Good work! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Now, as the median is gone, can we close the RFC and pass to discussing further development of the table? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal regarding median and RFC

I think that the RFC above is just a time waster. I would propose the following course of action:

Close the RFC.
Open new RFC asking for a best way to represent statistical data.
Until consensus is reached, remove or comment out (hide) median from table.

I believe this way would help us reach the consensus in a shorter time frame. Thoughts? Suggestions? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Whether statistical analysis across multiple sources constitutes original research or not can (and should) be debated and decided on it's own. If it is original research then it is original research regardless of our ability to reach consensus for another way to present statistical data. You can open another RFC, but this one has to run to completion now. --Useerup (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

And so what? How does this affect the future of the article? What goal do you want to meet? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

And how would one remove the median data if the RfC supports its inclusion? Isn't the RfC about people wanting the median gone? Dmcq (talk) 01:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem is the Useerup will remove median any way citing the lack of consensus. So instead of running another round of Special Olympic Games here we could focus on something with potential to build consensus regarding the way to present data. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

You were talking about hiding or removing the median without waiting for a consensus. If someone could do that without the RfC then Useerup could do it. Useerup wants to remove it but can't currently so the proposal has no substance. The RfC should go ahead to check whether it can be removed. Actually according to WP:SYNTH and normal consensus rules in Wikipedia the consensus is needed for including it. In general if there's a problem with something the default is that it shouldn't be in. Dmcq (talk) 10:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I was (and still am) talking about removing median until it either gets restored or deprecated by consensual decision on the page contents. BTW, it already wasn't there by the time you wrote your last comment. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Apples, oranges, ravens and office desks

There has been talk of such things here. I understand that we are only measuring one thing, viz how many web visitors use this, that, or the other browser. The article goes into some detail as to how this is actually very difficult to measure. Then we take all the known sources of major information and provide detailed figures going back months and years from each of them. In between, we try to summarise. We choose five major measuring sources, that each provide data based on billions of web visits in the most current month, and it is surprising by how much they differ. So we provide a summary. The summary includes medians. End of. If we had a jar of sweets and asked some Americans to estimate how many there were, then some Europeans, then some people who look up things on the Wikimedia sites, we'd get different estimates. What could we do? Summarise and show a median. If we had estimates from people interested in X, Y or Z, we could include those. It wouldn't affect the fact that all the measurements were of the same thing, just different subsets from the true, global, (unmeasurable) world population. The more we got, the better. I suppose if some of the estimates were from a society for the blind, or from the association of sweetshop assistants, we may have to think about those. I don't see any apples and oranges problem here. --Nigelj (talk) 22:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I certainly do, some of the numbers are adjusted with CIA census data to estimate users from which there are not any hits. Others such as wikimedia use raw hits, and to not try to account for regions which don't have access to their servers, or where there servers are not very well used. As with the article I linked in my !vote these kinds of difference mean effectively that your measuring different quantities. I do believe there is an apples and oranges situation here. Thenub314 (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Nigel, I know stats can be confusing, but you do not appear to understand the arguments made against the use of this "median". inter alia, these different measures are looking at different jars, not the same one several times - your statement that "we are only measuring one thing" is flat out wrong. The targets can be described in vague English in the same way, but that's just a distraction. Furthermore, some of these jars do not appear to be relevant in the real world. For example, how many sites independent of the Wikimedia foundation cite Wikimedia stats as representative of the Internet? It's probably close to zero. Per WP:NPOV (seriously, read it) we should not give these stats any weight at all. Clicky and w3counter seem pretty obscure too.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 23:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The stats sources are estimating the actual usage share of browsers by measuring the usage share of a biased sample. The jar in this case is the actual usage share of browsers. The estimate is the measurement of their biased sample. In the case of a crowd of people estimating the number of jellybeans in a jar, each person is using their own mental model to determine their estimate. But just because their models are different does not mean that they are estimating different things -- they are all estimating the number of jellybeans in the jar, each in their own different and biased way. When you take the median of their estimates, it tends to approximate the actual number of jellybeans well. -- Schapel (talk) 00:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

No, that's wrong. They measure different populations and have different definitions of "browser usage". Look at the dramatic difference between Net Applications, Statcounter and Wikimedia stats. The differences are not reflections of margins of error in measuring. (You're confusing an imaginary situation constructed by some of the editors in this discussion here with the real one.)VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any dramatic differences between browser stats. I see numbers that agree fairly closely. I understand that the differences are not related to errors in measuring. The differences are caused by different biases in the samples that they take. Similarly, if you ask many different people how many jelly beans are in a jar, they will report wildly different numbers, each biased by the method they used to estimate the number. If you take the median of those guesses, you get an accurate number. -- Schapel (talk) 02:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

So 35% and 50% (IE) is close agreement? 6% and 11% (Safari) is close agreement? 15% and 22% (Chrome) is close agreement? You're kidding, right? These are large differences in market share. If a browser managed to increase its share by 50-90% it would be big news. Please don't pretend to engage in discussion if you've no intention of considering the evidence, as that would be acting in bad faith.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Which one of them is correct? I feel that picking one is a bigger WP:OR than simply calculating a median for illiustrative purposes. Can we just consider the median an illustration in a text form (and use it as such)? No original research involved. 1exec1 (talk) 12:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, those are pretty close. When you ask people the number of jelly beans in a jar, they give results that vary by an order or two of magnitude. So, yes, the numbers you cite are in close agreement relative to other situations where the wisdom of the crowds works well. So it seems to me that we can use it here. I am considering evidence, but I don't see you providing any. Do you have any evidence that the median of the measured usage share of browsers is not close to the actual value? All I see is people claiming that we can't do so, without evidence. -- Schapel (talk) 13:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

@1exec1. Choosing one of them is not original research at all, as we would not be creating new information. The policy we have to be careful of is WP:NPOV - that we are biasing the article. NPOV requires us to present viewpoints in proportion to their preponderance in reliable sources. If we are going to choose one measure for the lede, we choose the most popularly used measure (or possibly - in this case - the most popular two measures). As it stands, we're putting StatCounter and Net Applications - which are cited rather a lot judging by a rough google news archive count - on the same footing as Clicky and W3counter, which appear to be really rather more obscure, and Wikimedia foundation stats which I gravely doubt are cited by any independent source as a measure of general browser usage. In other words, we're contravening NPOV by giving equal credence to these measures in our calculation of this "median", particularly with the Wikimedia one, which no RS employs. (A graph of the Wikimedia results does no harm in the article, but it should absolutely not play any role at all in our headline descriptions of the market shares; that would break both NPOV and OR.) Look at it like this - if an editor were interested in using Wikipedia to undermine one browser or promote another, s/he could easily just keep adding or removing various measures to push the result towards the one s/he wanted. NPOV policy is a core policy for a reason, and it applies just as much in computer articles as in political ones.

The issue is thus not "which one is correct", but "which one is most commonly used". This is how we keep our neutrality in relation to the real world. It's clearly either Net Applications or Statcounter. I wouldn't object to either; it has struck me that having both side by side in the lede might be educational as to the different results one gets from different ways of counting, sampling and adjusting.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that deciding which source is most commonly used is itself OR. There are so many RS talking about browser share, that we need to use (statistical ?) methods such as GoogleNews, Google search, etc. Which one of them represents reliable sources? They give vastly different results (see my comment in the poll), how we can address that, WP:DUE and WP:NPOV then? Use median to combine the results of different methods that represent RS in some way? As you can see, we quickly return to the same problem we are solving, just with much more complexity and OR. Thus I do not think that picking some browser statistics engine is going to solve anything with less OR involved. 1exec1 (talk) 14:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I've answered above - use better search terms. I get Net Applications and StatCounter coming out consistently way ahead of others. For the life of me I do not understand how any of you can think Wikimedia stats have any place in a general calculation. You've all been on here a while, you should all be familiar with NPOV. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

@Schapel. I don't know how to put this delicately, but you don't seem to have grasped at all what the differences between these measures are. You keep talking as if there is only one population to count and one aspect of that population these measures are counting. This is simply not the case. The reason for the differences is not statistical or human error. It's because in practice they're not all trying to count the same thing. You may have what you think is a straightforward idea of "usage share" in your head, but establishing what that means in practice has resulted in varied approaches and definitions. Real world statistics are not like statistics one does in the maths classroom. (As for considering differences of 50% and more in results acceptable in statistics - that really strains credulity).VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

How are they counting not the same thing? They all measure global browser statistics, just with different biased samples of the global population. You suggest that picking one biased sample (one browser stat engine) and presenting that in the article is better than presenting several biased samples. Can you provide any statistically sound method how we can select the biased sample to present? 1exec1 (talk) 14:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Woah - you haven't understood that either? OK: First of all, the populations are different. Wikimedia foundation stats are reflective only of people who use wikimedia websites. This is going to be biased towards people who edit the sites (disproportionately white, male, college/technically educated, anglophone) as well as those looking up information (likely to have a higher level of education than average). Net Applications works with 40,000 partners, but at least they have a range of commercial, corporate, content, public and other sites. StatCounter gets information from over three million sites, but only those that volunteer to carry its tracking code. Its website says "StatCounter Global Stats are based on over 15 billion hits per month, by a random sample of people worldwide, to over 3 million global websites, covering multiple interest areas and geographic locations".

As for bias: While both statcounter and Net Applications have general bias problems in the sample (Judging by statcounter's figures, towards the US and away from places like China and Japan), only Net Applications deals with this by re-weighting their stats geographically in accordance with CIA stats on internet usage. That is, Statcounter does nothing to remove the bias. In other words, they look at different populations to begin with, and then Net Applications does something to their data which changes it a lot. So all three measures have very different samples, and only one of them does anything to get rid of the bias in their sampling. They're not all measuring "global" usage, or even representative usage in a single country.

There is also a different way of defining "usage". Is it a unique visit (NA, W3counter), or is it every page hit? This matters because it views different browsing habits differently.

I'll stress again - real world statistics is not like stats at school. When you ask a question like "which browser is used the most", there is not one clear way of defining that question quantitatively. Operationalising concepts for measurement is not a straighforward hand-wavy procedure.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Different stats companies estimate usage share using different methodologies in the same way that different people estimate the number of jelly beans in a jar using different methodologies. I fail to see how the two cases are different, such that taking the median of dumb guesses that vary by orders of magnitude is valid yet taking the median of measurements that vary by 50% is not valid, and the only argument that anyone can seem to produce is along the lines of "They just are different, can't you just see that?" No, I can't see that. Please cite some sort of source that explains the difference so I don't have to simply take someone's word that it's different. Before you do so, I suggest that you read Richard Gill's thoughts on the matter again. -- Schapel (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Adding to Schapel. Our own methods to assess whether the stats engine is appropriate is itself OR.1exec1 (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

We don't assess. We choose the one or two most used in RS. It's really simple. It's how Wikipedia works. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

But do we have an precise method to evaluate which is most used in RS? For browser stats, there are a lot of RS that cite the stat engines. We need to use some method to assess them all at once. I argue that selection of the method (be it Google Scholar/News/Search, Bing, etc.) is OR, especially since the search query is supplied by us, and the results for different queried differ dramatically. This means that our selection of sources is also OR. Now, WP:OR says that we should not include OR, that means we must not select the sources. The more sources we provide, the less impact the OR of selection has. With which part of this answer do you disagree? 1exec1 (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Strawman argument; not what VsevolodKrolikov said. We can pick any stat counter for use as lede, as long as it is being reported by a reputable source with meaningful editorial oversight and as long as we disclose that that is what we did. Selecting any such source is well within WP policies as long as the criteria and validation is disclosed (or obvious). We are under no obligation to pick "the best" or "most representative" source. Just a verifiable source. The attempt at calculating global usage share or some other variant of a single number signifying the usage share of a browser assumes that such a number exists and is meaningful. Only a single source attempts to do that in the first place (by adjusting for its own selection bias through CIA population estimates by country). Dumping different numbers (usage shares of different populations) into a calculation is WP:OR because it advances a viewpoint not supported by any source. The viewpoint is the resulting number, produced by WP editors, and claimed in here as well as by context in the article to represent the usage share of each browser.--Useerup (talk) 06:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to address each point you raise separately.

Where do you see a strawman argument? VsevolodKrolikov says: "We choose the one or two most used in RS"; I say we can't do that without inducing OR. Can you elaborate where I'm missing something?
"We are under no obligation to pick "the best" or "most representative" source." WP:NPOV (specifically WP:DUE) begs to differ. "[NPOV] means representing fairly, proportionately (#1), and as far as possible without bias (#2), all (#3) significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Emphasis mine of course. All current stat engines are cited widely. Thus excluding most of them would violate #1 and #3. Using an arbitrary method to remove all but one or two sources would violate #2, specifically as far as possible part, since excluding less sources would mean less bias.
"<...> is WP:OR advances a viewpoint not supported by any source." Can you elaborate what viewpoint is advanced by dumping lots of numbers into the table? I can only to repeat again: median is for illustrative purposes and will not be referred to anywhere in the main text.
claimed in here as well as by context in the article to represent the usage share of each browser. Sorry, that's a strawman argument. Can you specify where in the main text median is cited as the usage share? Various notes already warn that the data of the sources probably does not represent the real usage share. If the implication that the median also doesn't represent the usage share is not straightforward for you, that is not a problem of the median. We can add another warning to solve this issue if you feel it is so important.

1exec1 (talk) 13:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

We are under no obligation to pick "the best" or "most representative" source for the lede. The article itself already presents fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views. That's the table. In fact, because the table presents those sources, the median is uncalled for. VsevolodKrolikov was talking about the lede. The sources all have bias - some significantly so - and that bias is not erased by any median calculation. Medians may help erase sampling errors but you cannot compute the median of fruits by counting bananas and slivers of orange peel. I can only repeat again: Median is misrepresenting (mistaken for global usage share) and it is not comparable between browsers. It has no value and makes no sense. The median is claimed as "the" usage share by condensing multiple numbers into a single number, thus implying that the number is somehow a valid summary. It is not as the sources are sampled from different populations, have been corrected by the sources in different ways and have been collected in different ways. --Useerup (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

"We are under no obligation to pick the best or most representative source for the lede": It seems we are discussing different things. I strongly disagree with all sources or the median being in the lede. Though I disagree with picking one for the lede too. I think the best option would be to be very vague in the lede to limit OR (e.g. different sources report IE usage share between about one third and a half).
"Median is <...> mistaken for global usage share", "The median is claimed as "the" usage share". No it's not. Repeating that it is doesn't make it true. You can add a warning saying that median can't represent the usage share correctly, if you feel it's needed.
"It has no value and makes no sense". That's your opinion. Do you have any real evidence to back it up? An expert in statistics, Richard Gill, thinks otherwise, as do about ten editors here.

So again, what's your argument against median in the table? 1exec1 (talk) 14:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the argument against medians is becoming more reasonable. I agree that finding the median is original research, because it is a position not supported by any single source. However, some original research is allowed in Wikipedia. Computations involving simple arithmetic are allowed, provided there is consensus about applying the arithmetic. However, finding a median of five sources involves absolutely no arithmetic, so it is not clear that a consensus is needed to add it to an article. It seems like most people who have expressed an opinion want it, and professional statistician Richard Gill agrees it does readers a service. So, I have to ask, why the crusade against medians? Why not live and let live, and leave the median be? Or, if some editors really are so dead set against them, do what you need to do to clarify the Routine Calculations portion of WP:NOR to indicate that even calculations that involve no arithmetic must have consensus, or to indicate that finding the median of data form different sources is disallowed. -- Schapel (talk) 13:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Didn't you mean something else with the first sentence. I feel it's somehow out of sync with the rest of the comment. Or did I misunderstand something else? 1exec1 (talk) 14:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

If 1exec1 and Schapel are being genuine in discussing this issue , I'll try to contribute further.

@Schapel: The median calculation involves 5 sources. There are no selection criteria for these sources. There are lots more than five sources quoted in the media. Why have these five sources been chosen over and above all the rest? Why is Wikimedia - which no independent RS uses for a general usage share - being used at all? Why include "Clicky" when it's a rarely used measure? If we publish a median based on our own judgement what measures are relevant without any RS to suppport that judgement, we are providing original research to the reader.

@1exec1: "Original research" refers to what we publish in article space. If we only use one published measure, it's not original research because we didn't make the measure. The information the reader sees has not been created by us. We are not Statcounter or Net Applications. We didn't make the numbers. It's not from us. Someone else calculated it. It's someone else's research, not ours. We didn't do it.

The danger with selecting a measure is not that it's OR. It's that it may violate our policy on neutrality. But "neutrality" does not mean treating all measures equally (which is what the median calculation does). It means treating views of browser usage in proportion to their prevalence in reliable sources.

Determining which measure is used most is not OR, because it does not, in itself, create original content. 1exec1's idiosyncratic belief that searching google news, books and scholar is OR directly contradicts, for example, commmon practice in determining WP:article titles, as well as the practical enforcement of NPOV in general across the encyclopedia. Search term choice is not "OR" in the wikipedian sense - it's a constant part of the discussion of sources and NPOV terms. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I feel that we could've been arguing about different things. Did you mean that we should select one or two sources for the entire article or just for the lede?

If it's the latter, most of my current arguments do not apply, that's for sure, but I still think that picking anything for the lede might involve too much OR or fail NPOV. For the lede I'd prefer a a very conservative and vague approach (e.g. "different sources report IE usage share between about one third and half").

If you actually argue for removing most of the sources from the tables, etc., I've already said why I disagree with that: WP:NPOV (specifically WP:DUE) says "[NPOV] means representing fairly, proportionately (#1), and as far as possible without bias (#2), all (#3) significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Selecting only one or two sources would certainly violate #3, #2 and possibly #1. #3 because we wouldn't include all significant sources, only the few most significant ones. #2 because we would use an arbitrary method to select sources (I'll cover that below) and thus add some bias. #1 because the less significant sources would be not represented at all. I agree that we already violate #1, but I think it's impossible to represent the sources proportionally, since can't pick grey color, we have only black and white: we either include a source or not. I think that including more sources would violate #1 less than just picking one or two, but that's only my opinion.

As for OR, "Determining which measure is used most is not OR": I don't disagree with the principle, I just say that in this case we must treat the results of the searches very carefully. We can't even build a search query without OR. We can only vaguely know how popular is each of the stat engines. However, we can't give more weight weight for one source, less for another, the only option is include or exclude the source. Given that there's so much on the table, I think the apparent popularity of the stat engines should be considered very conservatively, thus we should be excluding less sources. :::Regarding the median I argue that it is added only for illustrative purposes without any implications whatsoever (i.e. it's just a number). Thus there's no issues with median implying equal weight of different sources or median being referred as the usage share, since it should not do that. 1exec1 (talk) 15:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

"Nigel, I know stats can be confusing, but you do not appear to understand the arguments", "an imaginary situation constructed by some of the editors in this discussion", "You've all been on here a while, you should all be familiar with NPOV", "I don't know how to put this delicately, but you don't seem to have grasped at all...", "Woah - you haven't understood that either?". You do not win an argument among intelligent and educated people by proclaiming that their baffling inability to agree with everything you say is directly due to their personal stupidity. I don't intend to discuss this any further in these terms. I assume you'll get bored here eventually and go off to 'argue' somewhere else. Good luck with that. --Nigelj (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Nigelj, it's not about agreement, it's about engagement. For example, if you look at the professor's opinion, he acknowledges the problem of the table not adding up to 100%, but in a detailed way he explains why he feels it doesn't matter. That's engagement without having to agree. It's acknowledging the issues that other people raise. You may be right to say it's unhelpful to point out that not engaging with objections in the specific manner people have done here genuinely comes across as not understanding them. However, if editors are going to dismiss objections so high-handedly, something needed to be said. !Voting rarely produces a happy outcome when the sides are not listening to each other. I'm certainly not calling anyone "stupid", and I apologise if you think I meant that of you.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

@Schapel: I hope we agree that the median involves some level of arithmetic (placing numbers in order, finding the middle, and possibly averaging depending are all skills taught under the heading of arithmetic). That being said my own personal objection was never that this should be ruled out on WP:CALC reasons. But because a calculation is simple doesn't mean it isn't OR, and all of the questions that VsevolodKrolikov asks are a good indication of why. We choose the sources, we choose how to measure the central tendency of these sources, we report the results. I personally am happy with leaving all the sources as they are with no median. If others feel the table is too complex then reducing the number of sources appearing in the table, but keeping the information on which sources we are aware of, seems like a reasonable compromise to me.Thenub314 (talk) 19:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

According to Richard Gill, finding the median is not arithmetic. I agree that it is original research, but without arithmetic we don't seem to need consensus to add a median to an article. Most people seem to want it, and Richard Gill thinks it serves a useful purpose. Again, if you really think medians should be forbidden or should require consensus before they are added, please do whatever needs to be done to clarify Wikipedia's policies to make that clear. -- Schapel (talk) 13:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:CALC talks about calculations. Are you trying to re-label median as "not a calculation"?. I am sorry, but median most definitively is a calculation and requires consensus. You cannot sneak around that by trying to make WP:CALC out to be about narrow arithmetic. Either we reach consensus or the median is gone. That is why I don't get why we have to protract this. --Useerup (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it talks about calculations. It says requires "consensus among editors that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the sources". But finding the median requires no arithmetic, as does finding the largest number or smallest number. Therefore, I don't think we require consensus for these statements. If we require consensus for stating a median value, would we not also then need consensus to say that one number is larger than another? After all, that's a calculation also. Any summarizing at all requires computation of some kind or another. Even stating what the range of values is requires computation. Do we need consensus to do that also? I don't think so. It seems simple and straightforward enough to list five values and state which is the largest, which is the smallest, what the range is, and what is the median, e.g. among the numbers 3, 5, 6, 8, and 9, three is the smallest, nine is the largest, all the numbers are in the range 3 to 9, and the median is 6. If you're so dead set against it, please have the WP:CALC updated so it's clear that a consensus is required for these statements. -- Schapel (talk) 19:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You are cherry picking the part of WP:CALC you like, ignoring the part which does not serve your purpose. You are even ignoring that 1) median may very well include calculating the mean if you have an even number of observations and 2) calculating median requires following an algorithm. You are also ignoring that one of the core objections of the opponents of the median is precisely it's applicability. Sorry, but calculating the median is squarely covered under WP:CALC, and these kind of discussions is the very reason WP:CALC exists: To make sure that if there is the slightest doubt that a calculation introduces new facts or represents a new viewpoint, the calculation is removed and not allowed. Also, see WP:BURDEN. These are core content policies which means that Wikipedia would rather err on the side of caution than risk jeopardizing it's purpose. I state again: Unless consensus is reached here (seems unlikely), the median is gone. It really is that simple.--Useerup (talk) 01:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not cherry picking. All of the examples in WP:CALC show arithmetic. The sentence involving consensus specifically mentions arithmetic. If non-arithmetic computation is disallowed as original research, the I don't see how Wikipedia editors can do anything but simply regurgitate information shown in sources. Summary by definition involves some sort of computation. There has to be a line somewhere, and that line is the line at which arithmetic is performed. If you wish to include median, finding the greatest number, finding the lowest number, and other computations that do not involve arithmetic, that needs to be made explicit so we have a clear demarcation of where the line is where consensus is needed. -- Schapel (talk) 02:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Median is a calculation. It is covered under WP:CALC. Take it to the OR noticeboard if you disagree. I'm pretty certain what the outcome will be. So I suggest you just deal with it. --Useerup (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, finding the median is a calculation. So is finding the maximum, minimum, ordering numbers, and so forth. If we start including those calculations in WP:CALC, it's a slippery slope that will lead to people removing information from Wikipedia they don't like using the excuse that it involves minimal calculation. If a calculation involves no arithmetic and should be covered by WP:CALC, it should be listed explicitly there. All I'm asking for is a clear demarcation between what does and does not need consensus according to WP:CALC, because if is going to be expanded to include calculations without arithmetic, there's no clear boundary. Any summary involving numbers could be considered a calculation. Right now, that demarcation involves arithmetic. -- Schapel (talk) 13:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The demarcation is: If it is a calculation it requires consensus. No need to try to parse WP:CALC to mean anything else by cherry picking the 2nd part and interpreting it out of context of the 1st part. Calculations are covered by WP:CALC because any calculation has the potential to introduce original research, arithmetic or not. Even maximum and minimum are prone to that. You could take that table an claim that the maximum usage share of Firefox is XX. And that would be original research and would patently disregard that other statistics could show a higher share. Same deal with median. --Useerup (talk) 15:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding this statement: slippery slope that will lead to people removing information from Wikipedia they don't like using the excuse that it involves minimal calculation. If the calculation is straightforward and useful, surely you will either have consensus that it is applicable or you will be able to cite a reliable source who has performed the calculation. That will remove the problem of "people removing information from Wikipedia they don't like". The problem here is that no source whatsoever has calculated the number being presented - it is a number produced by Wikipedia editors based on a selection of sources by editors. No other published reliable source has been able to challenge or validate the applicability of calculation nor the selection process. That is what makes the median blatantly WP:OR.--Useerup (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you're thinking this through. When people summarize information in Wikipedia, they apply non-arithmetic calculation. They find the largest number, smallest number, sort dates, count items (gasp!), and so on. If some small group of people does not like the result of this calculation, they could block consensus on whether it should be allowed. For example, we provide the number of known vulnerabilities for each browser and list the oldest vulnerability. If an Internet Explorer fanboi does not like these results, he could find likeminded people and claim these is no consensus that we can perform those calculations. What you call "blatently OR" is routinely done in Wikipedia. If we need consensus for all of it, we'll be dropping material right and left. It seems simple enough to just include calculation of a median in addition to arithmetic calculations to WP:CALC. Then the problem I mention wouldn't happen, because the median would be the only non-arithmetic calculation which would require consensus. -- Schapel (talk) 13:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

@Thenub314. I agree that reporting median as the results (conclusion/summary) is certainly OR and should not be used in Wikipedia. However, I think that adding median just for illustrative purposes does no harm. By saying for illustrative purposes I mean that there must be no implications in the text that the median serves (or could serve) as a valid proxy for market share. We could have an explicit warning that the median does not represent the global market share. As for the calculation of the central tendency, I think that we can't do that without too much OR whatever method we choose. Just reporting what the sources say in a very conservative and vague way (e.g. "different sources report IE usage share between about one third and half") could be a sensible solution for that issue. 1exec1 (talk) 14:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

1exec1, in principle I really see your point. The difficulty is there is no good way to make it stand out that this is for illustrative purposes. Foot notes/asterisks are fairly easy to miss. To be a bit anecdotal for a moment about a month before getting into this conversation I looked up the corresponding information about usage share of operating systems, and glanced at the article quickly, found the number in bold on the table and mentioned it to a colleague. Only later when I was looking back in did I notice the debate and have a chance to reflect on the question at hand.

Now I understand this is not a really good argument, it is really a situation of shame on me. But, I am a fairly analytical guy, I have a Ph.D in mathematics, and I was mislead. I think it is fair to assume that the average reader would be as well. My own personal experience just reminds my why NOR is important, and why we should be relatively strict about it. Also, I coould imagine my position might be different if the table had 100 rows instead of 5, but in all honesty I see no need for an central tendency in this particular setting, the list of numbers is short enough to glean what you care to know from it directly. Thenub314 (talk) 03:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it's possible to solve this problem. We can add a warning at the end of each table. Since the median is also at the end, the notice wouldn't be left unnoticed. For example:

Usage share of browsers for September 2011^{[Note 1]}
Source	Internet Explorer	Firefox	Chrome	Safari	Opera ^{[Note 2]}	Mobile ^{[Note 3]}
Net Applications	50.9%	21.1%	15.2%	8.0%	2.7%	6.0%
Statcounter	38.9%	25.0%	22.0%	6.6%	3.1%	6.7%
W3Counter	35.1%	26.1%	20.9%	6.0%	2.4%
Wikimedia	35.5%	23.8%	19.3%	11.0%	4.8%	9.2%
Clicky	41.3%	26.3%	21.8%	9.3%	1.3%
Median^{[original research?]}	38.9%	25.0%	20.9%	8.0%	2.7%	6.7%
Note: median is here only for illustrative purposes. It does not represent the global browser usage share.

What's your opinion about this? 1exec1 (talk) 13:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is that this is a horrible idea. It is not at all clear what "illustrative purposes" is. The median is just flat out wrong and this illustrates it more than anything. Just leave it out. The table is small enough to make the median pointless anyway. --Useerup (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

"The median is just flat out wrong": I've already asked you to provide real evidence for that. You haven't done that yet. There are a lot of people who think median is useful (including a renowned professor of statistics Richard Gill) for whatever reasons, so your argument is moot. Also note, that illustrative purposes does not need to mean anything precisely defined, the important part is the second sentence. 1exec1 (talk) 11:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I have provided ample evidence that median is WP:OR, violates WP:DUE and is being misquoted by other articles throughout this debate. Go read it; I am not going to rehash it here. You may think that the median is useful - and it may be to some readers. But the point is that it potentially useful original research, a synthesis of multiple sources and a number controlled by wikipedia editors through the selection of sources. Useful is not the criteria for including anything in Wikipedia. Verifiability is a core criteria and the median fails that because the applicability of the median is being challenged under these circumstances. On top of that, the median has great potential for being misunderstood by readers (and editors) who do not realize that they A) should NOT compare medians across browsers and B) the "usefulness" of the median is hampered by the fact that it is calculated from sources which sample different populations and measure different patterns and cannot be usefully thought of as a median of the population (according to Richard Gill).--Useerup (talk) 15:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The environment has changed a lot since your arguments were laid out and lots of them are being challenged. You should know better which your argument still apply. Regarding the above:

"is being misquoted by other articles throughout this debate": this is not a problem of median, but of the articles. Also, the warning in the table specifically addresses the absence of the implications of the median..
"But the point is that it potentially useful original research"": it falls within WP:CALC as you've admitted numerous times. Per that policy, there's no OR involved in simple calculations.
"<...> a number controlled by wikipedia editors through the selection of sources": all content of the article is controlled by wikipedia editors, it's always a problem. Why do you think this concern applies to median, but not, e.g. the table it derives from? Can you back your opinion with evidence, especially since the significance of the median is downplayed by an explicit warning?
"and the median fails [verifiability] because the applicability of the median is being challenged". Can you provide evidence that verifiability is affected by applicability by quoting a Wikipedia guideline or other relevant source? Without it, the argument is moot, since the median can be verified mathematically and therefore is not OR per WP:CALC policy.
"the median has great potential for being misunderstood by readers": an explicit warning specifically addresses that. If an editor uses median wrongly even after being warned, it's his problem. Can you specify how exactly the warning might be misunderstood by a reader?
"<..>should NOT compare medians across browsers <...>": do you have a source for that? Why shouldn't one compare medians of usage share as reported by various sources (i.e. not referring to the global usage share, but to the usage share data reported by various sources)? Comparing medians for some datasets does provide information about the relation of the datasets and is an accepted practice in statistics.
"the "usefulness" of the median is hampered by the fact <...> and cannot be usefully thought of as a median of the population (according to Richard Gill)". Could you specify where exactly does Richard say that? He says exactly the opposite: median is useful even in spite of the fact that it does not correspond to the median of the population. Quote:
The numbers in question can't be usefully thought of as a sample from some population, so their median can't be thought of as an estimate of the median of the population, but so what? The median is very simply calculated and one can imagine that many readers would like to see it, so adding it to the table does those readers a service.
So unless you provide evidence with more reliability than that of Richard Gill, your argument is moot.

Could you reply to the above arguments point by point? If I haven't addressed some of your points, please say so. 1exec1 (talk) 00:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

No. --Useerup (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I've provided valid criticism to your claims. I've asked evidence for your argument and provided my evidence why I think your argument is wrong. Note, that repeating an allegation does not make it true. If you don't respond, we may just consider that the consensus to leave median has been reached; see WP:CONSENSUS : "Ideally, it [consensus] arrives with an absence of objections". Also, "Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense". You provided either flawed reasoning or no sources. 1exec1 (talk) 00:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I have clearly stated my opinion. You have not provided arguments which can persuade me to change my opinion. I have stated and repeated arguments many times over and I'm not going to repeat it here just because you demand so. Go read the discussion. All of your arguments have been presented and rebutted before. Do not threaten to assume consensus just because I refuse to meet your tiring demands. I am not going to repeat arguments ad nauseam. --Useerup (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Repeating an opinion does not make it true. " All of your arguments have been presented and rebutted before." No they weren't. If you are not eager to build a consensus, so be it. 1exec1 (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

To answer 1exec1, I am not that crazy about the proposed table, it still bolds the median and the warning message is small and not very clear. To return to a subject someone brought up earlier, why are we quoting wikimedia data? Is it quoted by any third parties? Thenub314 (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

It has some advantages over the other stat collecting sites, like you don't have to pay to get counted. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 06:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Wikimedia data is quoted by RS, e.g. [1], [2]. As for the table, it's not the final variant, the message could still be improved. 1exec1 (talk) 12:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies and links. I am content about including wikimedia in that case. Thenub314 (talk) 03:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it says much about general browser usage though, that should be left to professionals who actually earn a living producing such stuff. How do we know whether there are special features about the people browsing Wikipedia? Besides of course them having good taste and using fave browser/ having bad taste and of course that explains them using fave hate browser. More to the point I think sticking in Wikipedia figures is undue weight when matched with those others. Dmcq (talk) 16:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

And BTW when is that median figure going to be removed? It just makes me annoyed seeing it in there making Wikipedia look like some fanboy blog making up figures. Dmcq (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The RS (linked by 1exec1)([http://techrights.org/2010/09/10/us-oriented-operating-system-surveys/ techrights.org) says "Wikipedia numbers are not accurate as a global indicator and there are other shortcomings to these numbers. Christian75 (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Why on earth would you include the median when these sites are measuring different things? Even if they were measuring the same thing, the median would depend arbitrarily on how many sources the authors decide to include. It’s a nonsensical idea.

In terms of what’s being measured, Net Applications measures users and Statcounter measures hits. These are absolutely not the same thing, any more than the number of cars is the same as the number of kilometres driven. The normal practice when discussing market share of countable goods is to discuss units (e.g. unique users or cars), and not intensity of use (hits or kilometres driven). Would you measure Volkswagen’s market share using the number of kilometres driven by VW drivers? Of course not. The correct measure is the number of cars, e.g. the number sold during a given interval or the number registered at a given point.

For ‘usage share’, the focus should be unique users, and hence the Net Applications data. Intensity of use may be interesting as a supplementary point, but it is simply not what normal usage of ‘market share’ refers to. Moreover, Statcounter’s sample sizes vary enormously and non-randomly across countries, which means its aggregate figures (but not country level figures) are simply meaningless. This is not a matter of opinion, it’s basic statistics. Faagel (talk) 12:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

^ "StatCounter Global Stats: Desktop vs. Mobile". StatCounter. Retrieved 24 Sept 2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

Cite error: There are <ref group=Note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=Note}} template (see the help page).

[StatDesktopMobile-1] "StatCounter Global Stats: Desktop vs. Mobile". StatCounter. Retrieved 24 Sept 2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

[1]

[Note 1]

[Note 2]

[Note 3]