From: aa@iti.org (Aayush Asthana)
Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: SCIA (Is a new CFV needed ?) BAD STATISTICS!
Followup-To: soc.culture.indian, soc.culture.indian.american, news.groups
Summary: Using doubtful statistics makes Alok's claims even weaker 
Keywords: Statistics, Alok, Inanities
Organization: Industrial Technology Institute
Distribution: world 
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 18:12:23 GMT

	******** A MUST READ POST FOR ALL PRO-ETHICS ********
	net-citizens who wish to see the SCIA controversy
	cleaned up and un-Alok-ated.

In article <1992Apr16.143920.9962@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (alok.vijayvargia) writes commenting on Harpal's correct statement:

>In article <1992Apr15.011857.7999@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, chohan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Harpal Chohan) writes:
>> 
>> Go and check how many sites contributed to the data from which the 48%
>> figure was derived from. Less than 2% of the estimated worldwide. Then
>> check how many of these (the ones which contributed to the data), are in the
>> USA. You'll find that a majority are. How on earth do you construe this
>> statistic to imply, that all the US sites (which you mysteriously estimate
>> to be 48% of the estimated worldwide; conveniently coinciding with estimated
>> scia propagation) are carrying your newsgroup, and it is only the non-US
>> ones which are not?
>> 
>> -h
>

Alok writes:

>Part 1:
>--------------------------------
>
>You write:
>
>a) 2 % sites contribute data for Brian Reid's study of propagation.
>
>I don't recall of such number. PLease post the relevant part of that mail 
>which shows this.
>

The onus is really on you, Alok, to provide clean statistics
yourself -- after all you were the one who violated net-ethics and
provided meaningless statistics of vote-taking and site propagation
on USENET!

>Then you write:
>
>b) Most of these sites were USA sites.
>
>I am not convinced with this observation. Prove it to me.
>
>I believe there are many sites in this study which are outside USA.
>----------------------------------------------

Can you, prove this now Alok, with just the plain facts and no
interpretations of your own?

>
>Part 2:
>
>Look at the statistics for soc.culture.usa.
>It is carried by 46 % sites.
>
>Now make an assumption which is quite reasonable, IMHO:
>

Hardly reasonable and you will see why, next---

>1) soc.culture.usa is carried in USA sites primarily
>2) it is carried in most of the USA sites.

Hmm., so soc.culture.indian is primarily carried in INDIA and hardly
in the USA?

soc.culture.british is restricted to sites in britain ?
soc.culture.austrailian is restricted to sites in austrailia ? 
soc.culture.japan is restricted to sites in japan ? 

Be reasonable, these soc. groups are not alt. groups.
They are carried on sites when the sysadmins make the accept or
delete decisions..

Your assumption is, thus,  thrown out of the window, as it's hardly
reasonable, however honest/humble/opinionated it may actually be!

>
>This would give an estimated number of sites of the total, in USA.
>
>Conclusion A: USA has about 46 % of the total worldwide sites.
>______________________________________________________________

A conclusive example of poor premises, poor data, poor logic, poor
deduction, and poor proof!  The game's up, Alok!

>
>Part 3:
>
>Now consider SCIA. It has propagation of 48% 
>____________________________________________________________________
>
>Part 4:
>
>
>Examine the postings which arrived on SCIA over last 4.5 months.
>
>Almost all of those postings came from USA sites.

Granted..
		But the real question to ask should be:
		WHO WAS POSTING ON THIS NEWSGROUP AT THE TIME?

>
>Most people who contributed earlier are still contributing posts on SCIA.
>

Hardly!  The Native Americans who contributed heavily because of the
confusion created by the name now no longer post on this group....
(not because, you cleared up the confusion but because they decided
to leave; this points to an UNCLEAR newsgroup charter and name)
so actually the MAJORITY does not post on this group any more (and
however much you question this statement of mine, you have the onus
to back up claims that you make first).

>This means that SCIA is carrried in these sites.

Given my statement above, most Native Americans now no longer post
to this group, so does this mean that SCIA is NOT carried on these
sites (I am NOT talking about being carried in the US but carried on
these sites) ?  

Again, poor logic, here in Alok's claims:

	An implicit assumption which Alok makes is that postings can
only be made from sites which carry these newsgroups, but we all
know that anybody can post to a newsgroup even if one does not have
access to newsgroups by sending postings to network servers!

Moreover, using data for posts made earlier and comparing them to
posters origins now is a fundamentally flawed method: 
Alok, does this without telling us that the two samples
are hardly representative of the poster's identities!
And since a poster's access to newsgroups is only limited by
the extent of e-mail (and not USENET) capabilities, none of this
data massaging is convincing at all.

>
>Since they are mostly in USA, it is the US sites which are carrying SCIA.
>(with some exceptions in Canada etc. - there have been one or two posters
>from Canada sites)

So if, someone posts via Berkeley from Timbuctoo you would count
that as `an exception' and include that as a site that carries SCIA
?

The real question that has bothered USENET has to do with your
ethics;  a certain code is followed in these matters and you as an
individual have to live within consensual boundries.  SCIA has to be
declared `clean' -- start from scratch -- BUT WITHOUT YOUR
INVOLVEMENT IN VOTE TAKING.

>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Part 5:
>
>There are only 46% sites in USA.  SCIA has propagation of 48% sites. 
>SCIA has very fewsites outside USA (Observation in part 4).

For the moment, if we take your earlier statement that only US sites
carry SCIA, as vaild (only for the semantics here) then the two
numbers above, 46% and 48%, mean that 48% of worldwide sites carry
SCIA and of these 46% are in the US -- 2 % are outside so the word
`only' becomes `mostly'.  But, we have shown that SCIA is not
automatically restricted to the US (because SCI is not auto. rest.  
solely  to India, SCB not res. to UK, etc.).  And you would conclude
that SCIA is mostly carried in the US ? 

This is bad reasoning! 

You cannot conclude this as you have used the wrong assumption that
the number 48 percent relates to US sites (the assumption that SCIA
is carried mostly in the US) -- you jumped the gun there and hatched
the chicken without the egg!  -- you used an assumption to prove
that same assumption, with no real data-  wheels within wheels!

The only thing that you can conclude is this -- US sites carry SCIA
and that's all -- no more on `mostly' and no less on non-US sites
`not-carrying SCIA'.  i.e. some US and some non-US sites carry SCIA
and some US and some non-US sites don't.

Which leaves us with an interesting point:  over time more and more
sites start carrying newsgroup (go look up the term `propagation')
.. and because of the stigma (3rd time, I think, in USENET history)
attached to the vote-taking process, this means that SCIA is pretty
much in limbo -- till it regains legitimate net-existence.
 
>
>Hence most of the USA sites are carrying SCIA with few exceptions in
>Canada and possibly UK.

See above.


>____________________________________________________________________
>
>Now,
>
>Did your little brain get it ?
>
>Alok


Must you keep on wasting bandwidth?

Aayush.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aayush Asthana    |  Industrial Technology Institute 
aa@iti.org        |  2901 Hubbard Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48109  -usa-
aa@hela.iti.org   |  Bell: (313)-769-4000	   Facsimlie: 769-4064 
------------------------- Disclaimer ---------------------------------
	Opinions and Net-Speak are mine alone, not of/for ITI.