What the reference describes.
In statistical hypothesis testing, a result has statistical significance when a result at least as extreme would be very infrequent if the null hypothesis were true. More precisely, a study's defined significance level, denoted by α {\displaystyle \alpha } , is the probability of the study rejecting the null hypothesis, given that the null hypothesis is true; and the p-value of a result, p {\displaystyle p} , is the probability of obtaining a result at least as extreme, given that the null hypothesis is true. The result is said to be statistically significant, by the standards of the study, when p ≤ α {\displaystyle p\leq \alpha } . The significance level for a study is chosen before data collection, and is typically set to 5% or much lower—depending on the field of study.
What the process still cannot guarantee.
A p-value is often reinterpreted as the probability a hypothesis is true.
That is a design criticism of how this research operation may be used, not a claim that the encyclopedia endorses the limitation. In this domain, the general redesign question is: statistical decisions become inspectable, selection-aware computations rather than one-number rituals.
Replace the mechanism.
Generate inference reports that distinguish tail-area probabilities, effect magnitude and model assumptions.
Implementation requires a typed scientific claim, explicit operational definitions, controlled access to evidence, an immutable record of relevant transformations, and independent checking appropriate to the kind of assertion. An AI-generated interpretation without those checks would reproduce the underlying failure at greater speed.
What would demonstrate improvement?
Automatically detect known p-value interpretation mistakes in published abstracts.
Compare with a defined baseline under matched resources, keep evaluation cases independent of the system under test, and measure both false alarms and undetected errors. Publish any negative or inconclusive result as part of the same investigation record.
Continue across concepts.
Each related title has its own revision-specific Wikipedia source and a separate critical dossier. Crosslinks are exploratory; they do not imply the encyclopedia articles support the proposed replacement.
No single authority.
The reference article establishes the historical and methodological subject under examination. The proposed criticism and replacement must earn their own support through reproducible tests and independent validation. Record disagreements instead of silently overwriting them.
Current Wikipedia article ↗ · Exact reference revision ↗ · Complete source ledger ↗