Yeah, but a totally innocuous app that the store maintainers are liable to let through.

They is one major academic publication, by one Dr. DB Kates that they can cite their "millions" thing from but any sort of serious analysis of the methodology of the thing raises huge problems.

#1 It's a phone based poll, where they used percentage of respondents as an analogue of the population. This, in-and-of-itself is pretty reasonable.
#2 The crucial metric of "percentage of respondents who say they used a gun to defend themselves in the past 5 years" is well under the 3%ish of people who freely lie on phone polls, even on subjects where they have no incentive to lie. For closer to 50% response rates, this tends to balance out, as the lies get evenly distributed. For very small margins it becomes a huge problem. This is exacerbated by heavily politicized gun owner respondents have a known motivation to lie.
#3 Through no fault of the criminologist who ran the study, people like, the GP condense that above mentioned 5 year statistic into 1 year. There are statistically meaningful ways to do this, but piling all 5 years as happening in the last year is dumb.
#4 The results were glaringly inconsistent with the overall rate of crimes occurring. Crimes deterred by guns being a greater number than actual police reports when less than half the US population are gun owners is grounds to be suspicious. In conjunction with #2 it's grounds to say that the study provided no meaningful insight.

And even that's not clear enough a definition to get past the people who keep throwing around the term. There has to be a false appearance of official sanction for the action. Either directly on the part of a cop, as in your example, or through the implication that there would be no prosecution of whatever crime they were entrapping you into.

If, to a regular citizen, there's no reason to believe that the person suggesting the crime has any official power whatsoever, it's not entrapment.

Well, yeah, when BBC's Jimmy Savvile, the media just didn't have any nonces left to stand up for the oppressed.

Not quite true. Very recently registered and non-registered users can't create articles. There's a page for them to suggest those articles to people with the amazing skill of creating a username and password.

What exactly is "the public"?

I feel that analogy might just be more complicated than the actual math.

Because, in the end, misinforming is often worse than not informing. If there's no discernible way for the people reviewing the article to check if it's valid, there's serious concern about PR and marketing injecting false information into your supposedly neutral encyclopedia, misleading everyone using your site.

The line is going to be somewhere. They have verbal debates about all-but-the-most-obvious of deletions(which officially still require four eyes, one pair to propose speedy deletion, one to delete).

Yep, and there are like 2 dozen python wikis where no one would mind a write-up, and links. Sometimes things just aren't really encyclopedia topics. And that's fine.

Wikipedia, in spite of all odds, somehow manages to hold onto a tiny reputation for informational quality. Part of that is not having more information than the users can reliably fact-check. And I've never held it against wikipedia if I look something up and it just doesn't have an article. I fall back to the whole rest of the internet right away.

Wikipedia has rules. While those rules exist for good reasons, by nature of being rules they are most easily navigated by bureaucratically minded, officious mindset.

People have this false mindset where wikipedia, by virtue of their "anyone can edit" policy is an infinite bastion of free expression. When really, it's just a whole lot of people disagreeing and squabbling and working and editing to make and upkeep an encyclopedia.

At some point there will be an article on Wikipedia, that only meets Wikipedia's notability requirements due to media spillover complaining about the notability requirements.

I've calculated it's precisely the day after you die, which is also when immortality is invented. Tough break, duder.

Argh, it's like I've been sucked into Star Trek, and everyone just uses science terms for whatever, as if they're all related.

No. Not the zero point field. Not at all.

That's not what quantum tunneling is. Tunneling has to do with the phase-state of particles, and how it implicates their ability to cross force barriers that should reverse them under classical understanding.

It's a bit like if your car blinked into and out of existence every couple seconds, you could sometimes drive through a brick wall.

Because you only have to mathematically prove the model, then you can run arbitrarily complex pragmatic experiments on it. Rather than proving the arbitrarily complex thing you're testing.