Talk:United Kingdom Mathematics Trust

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] SMC scoring system

I'm going to get overruled on this, but I would like to state my opinion anyway. I believe that Wikipedia should provide simple and accurate information free from the bias of any organisations. The UKMT say that for the senior maths challenge you start off with a score of 25, get 4 marks for a correct answer and 1 mark deducted for an incorrect answer. However this is the same as giving 5 marks for a correct answer and 1 for leaving out the answer. This alternative version is shorter, easier to understand and easier to work out (instead of working out 25+4c-w you do 5c+b, the five times table is easier than the four times table, addition is easier than subtraction and you no longer need the random 25 at the beginning).

So why does UKMT use this other system? It seems to be because the version they present sounds less like it reqards people for not answering questions (the only alternative explanation I've come accross is that they haven't noticed that it can be simplified). This means that the 5 and 1 scoring system is simpler, just as accurate and freer from the bias of just putting what an organisation (UKMT) say. I expect most people regard me as crazy after reading that and feel that not using the original is introducing bias of it's own. But I don't think presenting a simplification of the rules which gives exactly the same results will do anything other than benefit the article. Raoul Harris 17:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thing is, whichever scoring system is simpler is not the point. The idea of Wikipedia is to generate accurate sources of information. The UKMT have that scoring system for a reason, it is not up to us to alter it for the sake of easier understanding. Using the simpler scoring system is not only inaccurate but also unverifiable. It needs to conform to Wikipedia's policies. Spaztic ming 01:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

But it is accurate. Completely accurate. If UKMT cam up with a test where you only get marks for correct answers and they said "award 3 marks for each question, multiply the total by seven, then divide by 21 to get the final score" would it be better to put all that or just say "you get one mark for each correct answer"? Why would the first system be more accurate? I don't expect anyone to agree with me, even I think I'm a little crazy for mistrusting the scoring system of a charity. But it's completely accurate and a little bit of algebra can verify that. Raoul Harris 08:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying saying it's inaccurate in terms of the mathematics. It is inaccurate in terms of factual content. It is NOT something you can verify or source, therefore cannot be used on wikipedia. Your scoring system actually comes under "new interpretation" which is against Wikipedia's "No original research" policy. I understand where you are coming from, but the article needs to relate to the real situation. Spaztic ming 15:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I still think it is factually accurate though, even if it violates wikipedia policy. I'm not trying to get the article changed, it is just a statement of my disagreement. Just out of interest if there was an exam with the (3c*7)/21 scoring system example I gave in my last comment, would you be in favour of giving that scoring system in the article? It would be correct to write it out in full, but such a waste of space for something which just awards one mark per correct answer. Raoul Harris 15:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Headings

I think the current headings are much clearer with JMC, IMC and SMC as separate titles. I understand that they should all go under "Mathematical challenges" but that makes the article really hard to read. Spaztic ming 21:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)