Talk:Systematic bias

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Measurement, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.MeasurementWikipedia:WikiProject MeasurementTemplate:WikiProject MeasurementMeasurement articles

Weather Low‑importance

	Weather portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Is this correct?

Quote:

Once detected, systematic effects are easier to take into account than random effects: in the example just given, one knows that the thermometer always reads three degrees below the correct value. Thus one can simply make a systematic correction by adding three degrees to all readings. In contrast, there is no equally simple correction for random error.

In some cases that may be correct, in other cases it is the other way round. Some systematic errors, while we know they are probably there, cannot be quantified. A very simple correction for random errors may be to repeat the experiment 10 times and calculate an average. Am I right? If so, how do we best fix this?--Niels Ø 19:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

______________________________________________

- I don't know how to create a new post in this discussion so I'll edit this post instead. I made a few minor changes without changing any of the substance. I do agree with the point made by Niels, though I don't feel qualified to add it in the actual page. L.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.86.13.237 (talk) 02:06, 30 November 2006

- Same as above; also: In our field of mechatronics, we use the term systematic error as to indicate not only measurement errors but also for example to compare, errors made by a human hand in a production line, that is non-systematic, as to machine errors that are.

This enables one to correct the factor that causes that machine error, thus eliminating this error 'permanently'. The same could definitly not be said about the human error which could be caused by such remote thoughts as "what present to get for one's mother, etc.', and thereby not pay enough needed attention to the work at hand!

N.S./

Proposed merge

Oppose -- Systemic bias has been merged into Systematic bias. Now, someone added merge tags suggesting to merge Systematic bias and Systematic error. One well-written article covering all the ground could be OK, but it is important not to confuse matters. Certainly, not all systematic errors are due to systemic bias (where as systemic bias always causes systematic errors).--Noe (talk) 13:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who added the tags. If I understand you correctly, you are concerned that people might confuse systemic bias and systematic error? Btyner (talk) 22:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.--Noe (talk) 08:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noe, could you please give an example of systematic error which is not produced by systemic or systematic bias? (I guesss you are using the two expressions systemic bias and systematic bias as synonyms; that's ok for me). Paolo.dL (talk) 16:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]