OOXML Vote and the CPI Corruption Index 190
Tapani Tarvainen writes "It turns out there's an interesting correlation between Transparency International's 'corruption perceptions index' and voting behavior in ISO's OOXML decision. Countries with a lower score (more corruption) on the 2006 CPI were more likely to vote in favor of OOXML, and those with a higher score were less likely. According to the analysis, 'This statistics supports with a P value of 0.07328 the hypothesis that the corrupted countries were more likely to vote for approval (one-tailed Fisher's Exact test). In other words, simplified a bit: the likelihood that there was no positive correlation between the corruption level and probability of an approval vote, that is, this is just a random effect, is about 7%.' Of course, correlation doesn't prove causality."
More interesting pattern (Score:5, Insightful)
This population index anomaly must be rectified, before the ISO can regain any credibility as an International standards organisation.
democracy != fact-oriented decisions (Score:2, Insightful)
Thanks, Intarweb reporter (Score:4, Insightful)
Appending "Of course, correlation doesn't prove causality." to the end of an article strongly implying causality in every sense, doesn't absolve the reporter from the false conclusions he/she implies throughout the rest of the article.
That the correlation was run at ALL implies that someone was 'looking for something' - suspect 1. The layer upon layer of dependent statistics leading to a very authoritative-sounding "the likelihood that this is a concidence is 7%" makes it sound very scientific and accurate - suspect 2
Sorry, this is FUD passed off as news supported by phony statistics.
Re:More interesting pattern (Score:4, Insightful)
Two points to make here: (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course... (Score:5, Insightful)
Given the inappropriate use of the Fisher's test, questionable use of a one-tailed model and p > 0.05, I'd start with worrying about having proven correlation.
Has ECMA become a Microsoft shill. (Score:5, Insightful)
formerly European Computer Manufactureres Association - dont see many of them around these days).
ECMA is fully accredited by ISO and in ists search for a new role as a standards body did
a nice job producing a standard for the orphaned Javascript ( except for changing the name
to the disease like ECMAscript).
However since then other "standards" developed by ECMA have been:-
-- the programming language C# ( C "sharp")
-- a Common Language Infrastructure (CLI)
-- a CLI binding for C++
-- Office Open XMLOffice
Anyone spot a pattern here?
The other problem is that ECMAInternational is essentialy a club of computer software and
hardware manufacturers and unlike national standards organisations (ASA, BS, DN etc.)
does not have any public interest mandate; it exists only to serve its members and
to join you need to be a large software or hardware manufacturer.
I have no problem with any industry forming a club to standardise things among themselves
but for an industry association to be the main sponser of an ISO standard seems plain
wrong.
Microsoft for one seems to have spotted an ideal vehicle for turning proprietary products into standards.
Re:OpenISO.org (Score:5, Insightful)
Your cause is interesting, but I'm afraid there's a lot more to do than a barebones 'vision' page, so to create a standards body able of replacing ISO.
ISO has created over 16500 standards, and publishes ~1250 new ones each year. Yes, that means several new ones each day. Those include food safety, environmental protection, oil and gas, ship and automobile building, basically everything.
Computer formats comprises but a minuscule fraction of ISO's work.
OOXML was overthrown at ISO, isn't this what you wanted after all.
So the system works, no need for anti-establishment rebellion for anti-establishment's sake.
Re:Thanks, Intarweb reporter (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you suggesting that correlations cannot be run without someone "looking for something" to prove causality? If so, why would anyone ever use correlation in any sort of statistical analysis because it's merely a means to an end in the eye of the person running the correlation.
Bogus statistics example: 78% of 16-18 year old children consume large amounts of carbonated soda. 93% of 16-18 year old children attend high school. It therefore follows that there is a direct correlation between 16-18 year old children who drink carbonated soda and those that attend high school.
Please forgive my abysmal example of a correlation (because I'm really bad at doing real math and statistics) but it's there to show that anyone can create a correlation and assign it some number without having an ulterior motive. The implication of your statement above was that this correlation shouldn't have even been run except that it was to further the agenda of the author.
I think the correlation is interesting on its face, but I'm not about to use that as evidence in an international court to point fingers and shout "corruption!"
Re:Evidence of causality (Score:3, Insightful)
He was talking about the article, the misapplication of statistics in particular, not whether there were irregularities or not.
Sweden has a low corruption index, but there is evidence of irregularities there. See, I just used evidence to trump the statistics in the article...
Re:OpenISO.org (Score:2, Insightful)
It makes me wonder what the value of having so many standards is. Isn't a standard supposed to be a single authoritative source / guideline on how to do something? If you have 500 competing standards or an organization whose sole purpose is to churn out standards then that dilutes the standards that come out of the organization, doesn't it?
Perhaps a simple example would be the Imperial measurement system versus the Metric system. If we had one global standard (Metric most likely) wouldn't that make life a lot easier for international joint ventures of engineering and such?
Dictionary.com [reference.com] says:
-noun
1. something considered by an authority or by general consent as a basis of comparison; an approved model.
Re:Another interesting correlation... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:OpenISO.org (Score:5, Insightful)
No, MS-OOXML hasn't been "overthrown" at ISO, at least not yet. There's going to be that "ballot resolution meeting" in February 25-29, 2008 in Geneva (I've already booked my hotel room, since hotel bookings can be a bit difficult in Geneva if attempted on short notice) and then there's going to be another vote. In my opinion it'd take a miracle for MS-OOXML not to get passed then regardless of how many of the substantial comments the "ballot resolution meeting" manages to resolve.
So the system works
No, it doesn't. It's totally broken. And if in the end the voting result happens to be the correct one (rejection of the "fast track") after all, that won't be the case because of a trustworthy process based on legitimate, valid arguments, but rather it would be the case because of the successful application of comment-bombing and similar tactics by the opposition.
no need for anti-establishment rebellion for anti-establishment's sake
I have seriously tried to work within the existing system, with the only resulting success being that I have learned just how badly broken it really is.
Re:Thanks, Intarweb reporter (Score:5, Insightful)
It wasn't the article that said that, it was the Slashdot summary. A bit of a weasel word though, it should be clarified as "correlation doesn't always prove causality, but in this case we believe based on evidence A, B, C that..." or removed.
[...]doesn't absolve the reporter from the false conclusions he/she implies throughout the rest of the article.
Speaking of weasel words... What conclusions do you believe are false then, and why?
That the correlation was run at ALL implies that someone was 'looking for something' - suspect 1.
We HAVE to look for SOMETHING, both in statistics and other science. It is pretty much impossible to do as Shelock Holmes said - "It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence. It biases the judgment." How do you know that you have all the evidence if you don't even know what you are looking for?
Sorry, this is FUD passed off as news supported by phony statistics.
You may not agree with the conclusions, but how are the statistics phony?
Re:Another interesting correlation... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Of course... (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly, for the reasons you mentioned and also because he had seen the data before deciding on the cut point.
I agree with you about the one-tailed test though.
Someone else addressed [slashdot.org] that point pretty well already. The one thing I'd add is that using a one-tailed test gives your alternative hypothesis a huge boost in power and even where it's technically defensible, it's still best to reserve it for cases where statistical significance would be contrary to what you're hoping to find.
Re:More interesting pattern (Score:2, Insightful)
There are many hunters in the US. I presume many more of them would like to kill a grizzly than there are of them. So yes, this one of those (many) times that government is GOOD.
Bert
Re:OpenISO.org (Score:3, Insightful)
So let me see if I can distill this a little.
You said (paraphrasing) "The system only works if people of good character are actively involved."
Congratulations, you've just described everything that involves people. In the entire world. In the entire history of humanity.
Re:OpenISO.org (Score:3, Insightful)
"working system" definition (Score:3, Insightful)