This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Rasmussen Reports article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
I have just edited the 2018 section (although I forgot to log in). Before it is reverted back I think it is worth discussing whether as previously written the tone is suitable for wikipedia.
"Traditionally, such a wide error in polling would lead to a major rethink of methodology, but Rasmussen pushed back against critics after their widely derided miss, falsely claiming that "that the midterm result was relatively poor for Democrats compared to other midterms" - despite the fact that the Democrats scored a historic margin in the popular vote victory. Ultimately, Rasmussen has made no effort since the 2018 midterms to fix their demonstrably flawed polling methodology."
Terms like 'demonstrably flawed' don't seem to be appropriate, and I haven't been able to find a source for the quote given in the section. In general, the voice of the paragraph is of someone who doesn't like Rasmussen, although I am of course sure this is completely unintentional.
I also added a section on Trump's appraisal and tweeting of Rasmussen. I think the President praising a poll is sufficient to be under the section of favourable evaluation. CMSPhys ( talk) 09:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
For Rasmussen's says they are non-partisan but look at their social media accounts. Daily Caller, Gateway Pundit & Breitbart are their preferred sources of information. The commentators have a right wing slant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parkhill10304 ( talk • contribs) 23:54, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should this article, in Wikipedia's voice, describe Rasmussen Reports as "right wing?" Chetsford ( talk) 10:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Whitewashing - Marquardtika's edits go beyond a fair discussion on objectivity. It is whitewashing legitimate information regarding this entry. To remove all references to their FiveThirtyEight grade, removing methodological discussions regarding their methods & removing other relevant information regarding this organization misrepresents this organization. Furthermore, there is a difference between variance and bias. To say "every pollster's accuracy ebbs and flows" ignores that their well documented bias towards the right. To dismiss objective criticism as mere anecdotes from a "competitor" (despite the criticism coming from around the statistical community) skews the truth and is antithetical to the goals of WP.
Marquardtika has repeated content that is closely aligned with (Rasmussen)
[3] while eliminating information from objective & credible sources. It has been established repeatedly that Rasmussen has a Right-leaning bias. The commentary regarding their methods and performance is also well established. This spin or white-washing regarding Rasmussen's history is against the Wikipedia editing standards.
If the company was founded only in 2003, how could they survey the 2000 election?? Violansky ( talk) 11:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Previous editors had concerns about describing the pollster as objective. This was revisited several times, including during a serious of edits describing the pollster as right-wing. Newsweek has now described the pollster conservative. This on-top of the other analyses reported by sources describing the pollster as having a significant and persistent bias. Any edits to the alternative will need to provide several independent sources.
Does this analysis [4] of the content of a tweet violate WP:OR? Chetsford ( talk) 05:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Do you describe the hundreds of other polls as "left wing"? Because they are
You just don't recognize that because you have been manipulated to believe that left wing is just "the norm."
This article is the embarrassing. Do you really believe that things such as this make people trust Wikipedia more? Wikipedia is becoming a joke, and it's becaus of articles like this. 12-year-old children are running this circus. 199.66.65.246 ( talk) 08:50, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
The Poll That Did in Dilbert Creator Scott Adams Is Even Dumber Than You Can Imagine Doug Weller talk 19:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Rasmussen Reports article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
I have just edited the 2018 section (although I forgot to log in). Before it is reverted back I think it is worth discussing whether as previously written the tone is suitable for wikipedia.
"Traditionally, such a wide error in polling would lead to a major rethink of methodology, but Rasmussen pushed back against critics after their widely derided miss, falsely claiming that "that the midterm result was relatively poor for Democrats compared to other midterms" - despite the fact that the Democrats scored a historic margin in the popular vote victory. Ultimately, Rasmussen has made no effort since the 2018 midterms to fix their demonstrably flawed polling methodology."
Terms like 'demonstrably flawed' don't seem to be appropriate, and I haven't been able to find a source for the quote given in the section. In general, the voice of the paragraph is of someone who doesn't like Rasmussen, although I am of course sure this is completely unintentional.
I also added a section on Trump's appraisal and tweeting of Rasmussen. I think the President praising a poll is sufficient to be under the section of favourable evaluation. CMSPhys ( talk) 09:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
For Rasmussen's says they are non-partisan but look at their social media accounts. Daily Caller, Gateway Pundit & Breitbart are their preferred sources of information. The commentators have a right wing slant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parkhill10304 ( talk • contribs) 23:54, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should this article, in Wikipedia's voice, describe Rasmussen Reports as "right wing?" Chetsford ( talk) 10:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Whitewashing - Marquardtika's edits go beyond a fair discussion on objectivity. It is whitewashing legitimate information regarding this entry. To remove all references to their FiveThirtyEight grade, removing methodological discussions regarding their methods & removing other relevant information regarding this organization misrepresents this organization. Furthermore, there is a difference between variance and bias. To say "every pollster's accuracy ebbs and flows" ignores that their well documented bias towards the right. To dismiss objective criticism as mere anecdotes from a "competitor" (despite the criticism coming from around the statistical community) skews the truth and is antithetical to the goals of WP.
Marquardtika has repeated content that is closely aligned with (Rasmussen)
[3] while eliminating information from objective & credible sources. It has been established repeatedly that Rasmussen has a Right-leaning bias. The commentary regarding their methods and performance is also well established. This spin or white-washing regarding Rasmussen's history is against the Wikipedia editing standards.
If the company was founded only in 2003, how could they survey the 2000 election?? Violansky ( talk) 11:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Previous editors had concerns about describing the pollster as objective. This was revisited several times, including during a serious of edits describing the pollster as right-wing. Newsweek has now described the pollster conservative. This on-top of the other analyses reported by sources describing the pollster as having a significant and persistent bias. Any edits to the alternative will need to provide several independent sources.
Does this analysis [4] of the content of a tweet violate WP:OR? Chetsford ( talk) 05:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Do you describe the hundreds of other polls as "left wing"? Because they are
You just don't recognize that because you have been manipulated to believe that left wing is just "the norm."
This article is the embarrassing. Do you really believe that things such as this make people trust Wikipedia more? Wikipedia is becoming a joke, and it's becaus of articles like this. 12-year-old children are running this circus. 199.66.65.246 ( talk) 08:50, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
The Poll That Did in Dilbert Creator Scott Adams Is Even Dumber Than You Can Imagine Doug Weller talk 19:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)