Changes

:::All that is needed here is a distinction between controversial and uncontroversial facts. No one would dream of asking for a citation for an uncontroversial fact, such as "the sky is blue". No one would dream of letting a controversial claim, such as "more than half of people have seen at least one Shakespeare play" pass unchallenged. The question is whether the bit about talking to twenty people each is uncontroversial or self-evident enough not to require further explanation.

:::All that is needed here is a distinction between controversial and uncontroversial facts. No one would dream of asking for a citation for an uncontroversial fact, such as "the sky is blue". No one would dream of letting a controversial claim, such as "more than half of people have seen at least one Shakespeare play" pass unchallenged. The question is whether the bit about talking to twenty people each is uncontroversial or self-evident enough not to require further explanation.

:::Now, I would argue that it is. It must be a rare person who doesn't know 20 other people, and since march participants are keen on their cause, no doubt they are going to talk about the march to most of the people they know. And as the article states, some such as clergy (or those running popular blogs) are going to reach a lot more people - maybe hundreds or even thousands. So it seems to me that 20 is if anything a low estimate, and if any change is to be made at all, the number should be increased. I think 35 or even 40 would be reasonable, taking into account high-reach individuals who are going to drag the average (mean) up significantly.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:46, 24 January 2012 (EST)

:::Now, I would argue that it is. It must be a rare person who doesn't know 20 other people, and since march participants are keen on their cause, no doubt they are going to talk about the march to most of the people they know. And as the article states, some such as clergy (or those running popular blogs) are going to reach a lot more people - maybe hundreds or even thousands. So it seems to me that 20 is if anything a low estimate, and if any change is to be made at all, the number should be increased. I think 35 or even 40 would be reasonable, taking into account high-reach individuals who are going to drag the average (mean) up significantly.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:46, 24 January 2012 (EST)