great we make national news-west ashley shooting at mall

[OrangeCountyGirl]

I'm shocked to see Mission Viejo/Lake Forest on there. Especially on a 'dangerous' list. I could see it if it was just stupid non dangerous crimes. A lot of rich white kids in that area, so that is to be expected.

But, I am truly surprised. Thanks for the info.

[OleTomCat]

Yes but by equalizing the size difference you make a town that has a very small population and a handful of crimes look worse than a big city with thousand of crimes how is that fair?

My chart didn't come through the way I hoped it would.

Memphis1,262.70 crimes per 1000K, Population 674,028, 8,511 total crimes
Sumter, S.C. 1,244.00 crimes per 1000K, Population 38,782, 482total crimes
Shreveport, La. 1,187.90 crimes per 1000K, Population 199,569, 2,371 total crimes
Florence, S.C. 1,160.60 crimes per 1000K, Population 31,431, 365 total crimes
Saginaw, Mi. 1,089.80 crimes per 1000K, Population 56,263, 613 total crimes
Alexandria, La. 1,067.40 crimes per 1000K, Population 45,857, 489 total crimes
Gainesville, Fla. 934.1 crimes per 1000K, Population 102,828, 961 total crimes
Anchorage, Ak. 932.3 crimes per 1000K, Population 279,671, 2,607 total crimes
Flint, Mi. 929.6 crimes per 1000K, Population 114,662, 1,066 total crimes
Salisbury, Md. 907.6crimes per 1000K, Population 27,833, 253 total crimes

Now that I have fixed the chart, you can see that the total number of crimes is much higher in Flint, Anchorage, Gainesville, Saginaw, Shreveport and Memphis.

The only city in the top ten lower that either of the SC towns is Salisbury, Md.

I would have to analyze the entire report to make a full comparison, but even so you can see how normalizing for size can skew the raw data greatly.

And just when in the 1700's was the FBI or anyone else analyzing crime statistics? Or is this just another exaggeration?

[windinspector]

a guy i went to high school with was shot there like 2 or 3 years ago during a drug sting. very sad situation.

[Geechie North]

Originally Posted by OleTomCat

And just when in the 1700's was the FBI or anyone else analyzing crime statistics? Or is this just another exaggeration?

Tom, I was using that year because it's around then that the field of Statistics got its start:



Statistics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


From it:

Some scholars pinpoint the origin of statistics to 1662, with the publication of "Observations on the Bills of Mortality" by John Graunt. Early applications of statistical thinking revolved around the needs of states to base policy on demographic and economic data, hence its stat- etymology

[OleTomCat]

Again with the Wikipedia, you really need to get a more reliable source for information.

Anyone who has done any real research, ie college papers, knows that Wikipedia is not a reliable source to be credited since it is user editable.

[Geechie North]

Tom,

There was a discussion of Wikipedia re: accuracy last year on C-Span. Some dissenters, but the mainstream was it is just as accurate as the average source. Cleveland Plain Dealer rep said it was just as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica.

Hope this stops the jive:


Wikipedia survives research test

[SIZE=2] John Seigenthaler criticised Wikipedia's reliability[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]The free online resource Wikipedia is about as accurate on science as the Encyclopedia Britannica, a study shows. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]The British journal Nature examined a range of scientific entries on both works of reference and found few differences in accuracy. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]Wikipedia is produced by volunteers, who add entries and edit any page. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]But it has been criticised for the correctness of entries, most recently over the biography of prominent US journalist John Seigenthaler. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]Open approach [/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]Wikipedia was founded in 2001 and has since grown to more than 1.8 million articles in 200 languages. Some 800,000 entries are in English. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]It is based on wikis, open-source software which lets anyone fiddle with a webpage, anyone reading a subject entry can disagree, edit, add, delete, or replace the entry. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=2] We're very pleased with the results and we're hoping it will focus people's attention on the overall level of our work, which is pretty good [/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia founder[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]It relies on 13,000 volunteer contributors, many of whom are experts in a particular field, to edit previously submitted articles. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]In order to test its reliability, Nature conducted a peer review of scientific entries on Wikipedia and the well-established Encyclopedia Britannica. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]The reviewers were asked to check for errors, but were not told about the source of the information. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]"Only eight serious errors, such as misinterpretations of important concepts, were detected in the pairs of articles reviewed, four from each encyclopedia," reported Nature. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]"But reviewers also found many factual errors, omissions or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively." [/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales welcomed the study. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]"We're hoping it will focus people's attention on the overall level of our work, which is pretty good," he said. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]Writing style [/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]Nature said its reviewers found that Wikipedia entries were often poorly structured and confused. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]The Encyclopedia Britannica declined to comment directly on the findings; but a spokesman highlighted the quality of the entries on the free resource. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]"But it is not the case that errors creep in on an occasional basis or that a couple of articles are poorly written," Tom Panelas, director of corporate communications is quoted as saying in Nature. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]"There are lots of articles in that condition. They need a good editor." [/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]Wikipedia came under fire earlier this month from prominent US journalist John Seigenthaler. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]The founding editorial director of USA Today attacked a Wikipedia entry that incorrectly named him as a suspect in the assassinations of president John F Kennedy and his brother, Robert. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]The false information was the work of Tennessean Brian Chase, who said he was trying to trick a co-worker. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]Wikipedia has responded to the criticisms by tightening up procedures. Next month it plans to begin testing a new mechanism for reviewing the accuracy of its articles. [/SIZE]


From BBC News 12/15/2005

[OleTomCat]

If that is so true than why is it that College professors and High School teachers alike will not accept references that include Wikipedia?

[Geechie North]

Funny,

I teach in college......................

[elvislives]

Lol you better check wiki quick geechie someone is having a bit of fun with you on there.

[Geechie North]

Probably just kids...............