11

Like @Scortchi and @whuber, I prefer shorter excerpts. (Besides aesthetic preference, I suspect they are more likely to be read.) I think excerpts should mostly proffer tag usage guidance, and that more substantive and detailed information is better placed in the full wiki. That said, what is "shorter" exactly? To some degree "shortness" is in the eye ...


9

I edited the wiki for lars. It now reads: LARS is an extension of the LASSO, which constrains regression coefficients to no more than a possible absolute sum. The LARS algorithm can be understood as reestimating the regression model step by step while slowly relaxing the LASSO constraint. The result of this is analogous to a forward selection selection ...


7

I'd go for the more concise the better, to increase the chance people actually read the tag wiki excerpt before using the tag & perhaps therefore use it correctly. The usage guidance, or tag wiki excerpt, is a short blurb that describes when and why a tag should be used on this site specifically. Mousing over a tag & reading the excerpt ...


6

I think for statistical questions, only when risk is an expected loss does it make sense to tag in a question. To enhance the browsing and tagging experience, it would be useful to rename risk to risk-function. In the other settings, "risk" tends to be specific to the field and not of particular statistical interest. I would advocate for deleting the risk ...


6

The ghost wiki excerpt eventually disappeared, even though I am not sure if this happened on its own or was a result of something me or @gung did (see here). I was not able to edit https://stats.stackexchange.com/posts/324506/edit -- presumably such "abandoned" posts are locked which makes sense. The apparent bug was not that this abandoned post could be ...


6

It's tricky but doable. Go to http://stats.stackexchange.com/tags and type "arma". You will see the original arma tag with its own question count and excerpt (this is because it was never merged into arima). There is an "edit" link there too, leading to http://stats.stackexchange.com/edit-tag-wiki/830 -- and this gets you where you want.


6

The purpose of a Wiki excerpt is not to supply as full and complete a definition as you can. It is to help people apply tags appropriately. To be effective, the excerpt therefore should: Be as short as possible, for otherwise it will be ignored. Be clear about what the tag means--but only to the point of distinguishing it from other possible tags that ...


5

To incorporate some of @amoeba's suggestions, how about: The error of an estimate or prediction is its deviation from the true value, which may be unobservable (e.g., regression parameters), or observable (e.g., future realizations). Use the [error-message] tag to ask about software errors. That has 234 characters instead of 308. I would leave the ...


4

I like the definitions quoted in @Sycorax'es answer here: https://stats.meta.stackexchange.com/a/3078. Can we adapt them for wiki excerpts? E.g.: predictionPrediction of unknown random quantities, using a statistical model. forecastingPrediction of the future events. It is a special case of [prediction], in the context of [time-series]. Regarding the wikis,...


4

I will post my own answer so that we could have some sort of voting here. I am obviously for detailed excerpts. After my post, @whuber edited all excerpts that I mentioned to shorten them drastically. Here are the edits so that people can compare which version they prefer: elastic-net: https://stats.stackexchange.com/posts/184175/revisions total-least-...


4

Q&A sites like Cross-Validated are not aggregators of information available over the web. They exist because general sources like Wikipedia do not suffice, and they are supposed to offer expertise focused on their field. Obviously what we write in this forum is not parthenogenesis, but neither is just aggregation : it is a purposeful synthesis of ...


4

I for one think something (accurate) is better than nothing, so it should make a difference whether something's there yet. However, a counterargument: people might feel less welcome to change something short that's already there, even if it's incomplete. The accuracy of the information should matter more than the source (all quotation and attribution being ...


4

I have manually retagged 2 Qs with statistics tag and 1 additional Q with probability into on-topic. The remaining 8 threads with statistics are all about site statistics, so it can now be renamed into site-statistics via moderator tools. I suggest you can do it now! The wiki excerpt says Questions about sizes and other quantities of Cross Validated ...


3

I think it's a great idea, and we could make [statistics] a synonym. If there's some confusion about which site is referenced, you could use [main-sites-statistics] instead.


3

One possible alternative for quickly setting up stock comments for common issues is discussed in the comments under the accepted answer here: How best to use the review queue? (where you can see many "standard" comments discussed) This refers to the stackapps script described here: https://stackapps.com/questions/2116/autoreviewcomments-pro-forma-...


2

When merging tags, the tag wiki (and excerpt) are transferred to the destination tag only if the destination tag does not already have a wiki. This behavior allows tags to be renamed via merging while avoiding the danger of potentially destroying a useful wiki. After merging, the old tag still exists for a brief period - there are no questions in it, but ...


2

The problem has been solved. Closing the thread.


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible