Jayjg's war on charts and graphs, they violate WP:SYNTH Options

[gomi]

For extra points, why, oh why, would Jayjg (T-C-L-K-R-D) have such a problem with allowing people to create charts and graphs to include in Wikipedia? I mean, there's this lovely one on the weather in Paris, this one of the Munich population, or even this lovely graphic of orbits.

[Hint: I know the answer. I'll post in a few days if no one rises to the bait.]

[TungstenCarbide]

For extra points, why, oh why, would Jayjg (T-C-L-K-R-D) have such a problem with allowing people to create charts and graphs to include in Wikipedia? I mean, there's this lovely one on the weather in Paris, this one of the Munich population, or even this lovely graphic of orbits.

[Hint: I know the answer. I'll post in a few days if no one rises to the bait.]

So he can proactively keep things like this excluded from Wikipedia ?

[Son of a Yeti]

For extra points, why, oh why, would Jayjg (T-C-L-K-R-D) have such a problem with allowing people to create charts and graphs to include in Wikipedia? I mean, there's this lovely one on the weather in Paris, this one of the Munich population, or even this lovely graphic of orbits.

[Hint: I know the answer. I'll post in a few days if no one rises to the bait.]

Because he has problems understanding what the colorful pictures are about?

[written by he who wrote it]

For extra points, why, oh why, would Jayjg (T-C-L-K-R-D) have such a problem with allowing people to create charts and graphs to include in Wikipedia? I mean, there's this lovely one on the weather in Paris, this one of the Munich population, or even this lovely graphic of orbits.

[Hint: I know the answer. I'll post in a few days if no one rises to the bait.]

Because he treats policy solely as a means to his ends, of course. What's his goal in this particular case?

[Milton Roe]

For extra points, why, oh why, would Jayjg (T-C-L-K-R-D) have such a problem with allowing people to create charts and graphs to include in Wikipedia? I mean, there's this lovely one on the weather in Paris, this one of the Munich population, or even this lovely graphic of orbits.

[Hint: I know the answer. I'll post in a few days if no one rises to the bait.]

Can I guess without knowing? There's some graph of US spending to support Israel, or the average income of Palastinians or something, that Jayjg really doesn't like the look of.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)

[Doc glasgow]

For extra points, why, oh why, would Jayjg (T-C-L-K-R-D) have such a problem with allowing people to create charts and graphs to include in Wikipedia? I mean, there's this lovely one on the weather in Paris, this one of the Munich population, or even this lovely graphic of orbits.

[Hint: I know the answer. I'll post in a few days if no one rises to the bait.]

So he can proactively keep things like this excluded from Wikipedia ?

Why, oh why, can't this be GFDL?

[Milton Roe]

For extra points, why, oh why, would Jayjg (T-C-L-K-R-D) have such a problem with allowing people to create charts and graphs to include in Wikipedia? I mean, there's this lovely one on the weather in Paris, this one of the Munich population, or even this lovely graphic of orbits.

[Hint: I know the answer. I'll post in a few days if no one rises to the bait.]

So he can proactively keep things like this excluded from Wikipedia ?

Why, oh why, can't this be GFDL?

There you go.

Isn't it amazing how well you can predict how and where the WP system will be gamed, once you know who is doing it and why?

[GlassBeadGame]

For extra points, why, oh why, would Jayjg (T-C-L-K-R-D) have such a problem with allowing people to create charts and graphs to include in Wikipedia? I mean, there's this lovely one on the weather in Paris, this one of the Munich population, or even this lovely graphic of orbits.

[Hint: I know the answer. I'll post in a few days if no one rises to the bait.]

So he can proactively keep things like this excluded from Wikipedia ?

Why, oh why, can't this be GFDL?

There you go.

Isn't it amazing how well you can predict how and where the WP system will be gamed, once you know who is doing it and why?

Programs... Get your WR programs.... Can't tell the players without a program.

Score cards... WR score cards...We got score cards, too.

[Cla68]

For extra points, why, oh why, would Jayjg (T-C-L-K-R-D) have such a problem with allowing people to create charts and graphs to include in Wikipedia? I mean, there's this lovely one on the weather in Paris, this one of the Munich population, or even this lovely graphic of orbits.

[Hint: I know the answer. I'll post in a few days if no one rises to the bait.]

Jayjg's "per talk" comment is evidently referring to this discussion. One of the participants in that discussion (SV), is a member here so perhaps she could explain the rationale behind the opposition to user-created graphs. Here is a user-created graph from the Global Warming article. Is this a violation of NOR?

[Jon Awbrey]

My Guess —

See Penis Size Statistics
See Jay-Pecker War

Ja Ja (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

[Milton Roe]

For extra points, why, oh why, would Jayjg (T-C-L-K-R-D) have such a problem with allowing people to create charts and graphs to include in Wikipedia? I mean, there's this lovely one on the weather in Paris, this one of the Munich population, or even this lovely graphic of orbits.

[Hint: I know the answer. I'll post in a few days if no one rises to the bait.]

Jayjg's "per talk" comment is evidently referring to this discussion. One of the participants in that discussion (SV), is a member here so perhaps she could explain the rationale behind the opposition to user-created graphs. Here is a user-created graph from the Global Warming article. Is this a violation of NOR?

The fun part is the Jayjg are Slim are castigating these guys for adding this little bit about graphs without any kind of consensus, when they know very well that the policies arose in 2004-5 when "consensus" consisted of things like SlimVirgin adding stuff about how newspapers can be trusted as reliable sources (something she added all across all the other RS,V articles), and a bunch of other policy, and they protecting it with tag teaming and whatever else it took. Now, 5 years later, it's "consensus" because it's been there so long. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif)

And don't you dare change it, like we did routinely 4 years ago, you young whippersnapper! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif)

[Jon Awbrey]

The fun part is the Jayjg are Slim are castigating these guys for adding this little bit about graphs without any kind of consensus, when they know very well that the policies arose in 2004-5 when "consensus" consisted of things like SlimVirgin adding stuff about how newspapers can be trusted as reliable sources (something she added all across all the other RS,V articles), and a bunch of other policy, and they protecting it with tag teaming and whatever else it took. Now, 5 years later, it's "consensus" because it's been there so long. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif)

And don't you dare change it, like we did routinely 4 years ago, you young whippersnapper! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif)

Not to mention a perfect example of Slimey rewriting a whole page off-line and then pasting it whole hog in one foul swoop, so no one will notice the poison pea under all her mattresses.

Later on she would learn to combine these paste-up jobs with paragraph and subsection permutations — the Wiki-Patented SlimVirgin Castling Manurever — that made it damn near impossible to track what actually happened.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[Cla68]

For extra points, why, oh why, would Jayjg (T-C-L-K-R-D) have such a problem with allowing people to create charts and graphs to include in Wikipedia? I mean, there's this lovely one on the weather in Paris, this one of the Munich population, or even this lovely graphic of orbits.

[Hint: I know the answer. I'll post in a few days if no one rises to the bait.]

Jayjg's "per talk" comment is evidently referring to this discussion. One of the participants in that discussion (SV), is a member here so perhaps she could explain the rationale behind the opposition to user-created graphs. Here is a user-created graph from the Global Warming article. Is this a violation of NOR?

The fun part is the Jayjg are Slim are castigating these guys for adding this little bit about graphs without any kind of consensus, when they know very well that the policies arose in 2004-5 when "consensus" consisted of things like SlimVirgin adding stuff about how newspapers can be trusted as reliable sources (something she added all across all the other RS,V articles), and a bunch of other policy, and they protecting it with tag teaming and whatever else it took. Now, 5 years later, it's "consensus" because it's been there so long. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif)

And don't you dare change it, like we did routinely 4 years ago, you young whippersnapper! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif)

If someone were to manually, or using a bot, go around and tag all user-generated graphs for deletion, citing the NOR policy, all hades would break loose. I'm fairly sure the dedicated team that protects the Global Warming article wouldn't be too happy.

Speaking of original research with an image file, look at this. The background here is that I added some new information to this article based on some news reports that came out today. Since the edit did not necessarily reflect favorably on the nation of Iran, I placed the article on my watchlist, because I've found that edits that say anything negative about Iran often don't stay around very long. Sure enough, the information was removed about 15 minutes later. I had to laugh when I saw the same editor add that picture that he drew. Notice in the image file that he doesn't give a source as to where he got the information he's supposedly basing his drawing on.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Here is a user-created graph from the Global Warming article. Is this a violation of NOR?

Oddly enough, in this case, yes, it's a textbook case of SYNTH. The graph shows measurements of CO2 at Mauna Loa, the world's largest active volcano, which is a real CO2 factory. Yet in the Global Warning article, the graph is placed in such a way as to suggest that it corroborates claims of a big man-made contribution to CO2 levels.

[thekohser]

Here is a user-created graph from the Global Warming article. Is this a violation of NOR?

Oddly enough, in this case, yes, it's a textbook case of SYNTH. The graph shows measurements of CO2 at Mauna Loa, the world's largest active volcano, which is a real CO2 factory. Yet in the Global Warning article, the graph is placed in such a way as to suggest that it corroborates claims of a big man-made contribution to CO2 levels.

I would object to the use of "310" as the anchor point for the y-axis. The chart might imply something much different to the casual observer if, for example, the scale was fixed at zero.

[gadfly]

I would object to the use of "310" as the anchor point for the y-axis. The chart might imply something much different to the casual observer if, for example, the scale was fixed at zero.

This is one reason why graphs should be treated with extreme care, and may well be only justifiably used on wikipedia if they are re-drawn copies of graphs already produced elsewhere. There are real and sometimes substantial cognitive and perceptual issues that affect the comprehension of the information the graphs are expected to transmit to the readers. Various sources within the psychological literature have confirmed many times that the form of presentation has a large influence (books by Edward Tufte show some examples of these kinds of presentational effects). It may well be that Jayjg has a point, but one must deal with the matter separately for each use. It is another instance in which the overall wikipedia interpretation of consensus leads to sub-optimal results.

This post has been edited by gadfly:

[Random832]

The problem is that there must be a better solution than blanket _forbidding_ of user-created graphs - this really should come under the NPOV policy - biased graphs can be prevented without throwing out _all_ graphs.

Oh and HK do you have any proposed mechanism for why a volcano would be producing _more_ carbon dioxide over the past 50 years than for its lifetime before that? (or did Mauna Loa only spring into existence 210 years ago?)

I've got mixed feelings on the scale - sure, you might have a point, but on the other hand is it really necessary to sacrifice vertical resolution to put a big empty space for people who can't read graphs?

This post has been edited by Random832:

[Jon Awbrey]

Oh and HK do you have any proposed mechanism for why a volcano would be producing more carbon dioxide over the past 50 years than for its lifetime before that? (or did Mauna Loa only spring into existence 210 years ago?)

I think HK is more of a Klingonologist.

Ja Ja (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

[gomi]

Glad to see this has piqued some curiosity. For those who haven't gone to the talk page of the relevant "policy", the back-and-forth between Jayjg (T-C-L-K-R-D) and CBM (T-C-L-K-R-D) here is gut-bustingly funny (or pathetic, if one takes a kinder view of WP). It is a sterling example of Jayjg's willingness to argue completely outside the realm of reasonability. As a side note, it is also a good example of SlimVirgin (T-C-L-K-R-D) proxying for Jayjg -- she doesn't have a dog in this fight, but she's in there anyway, or was, at the beginning.

[Random832]

The funny thing is he may even be right about whatever graphs he specifically wants to kill - the problem is that he sees policy making as something like - fight for the policy to be whatever works best for the arguments i'm in right now and damn the consequences for every other topic i don't care about.

Sometimes that approach makes good policy (I remember supporting SV in a policy proposal she was pretty clearly making just because someone had tried to stop her from including links in the 'see also' section of some animal rights article because it was also in a navbox, but which I thought was a good principle generally on the basis of banner-blindness etc), sometimes it... doesn't.

This post has been edited by Random832:

[The Wales Hunter]

Here is a user-created graph from the Global Warming article. Is this a violation of NOR?

Oddly enough, in this case, yes, it's a textbook case of SYNTH. The graph shows measurements of CO2 at Mauna Loa, the world's largest active volcano, which is a real CO2 factory. Yet in the Global Warning article, the graph is placed in such a way as to suggest that it corroborates claims of a big man-made contribution to CO2 levels.

I would object to the use of "310" as the anchor point for the y-axis. The chart might imply something much different to the casual observer if, for example, the scale was fixed at zero.

Agree with you, Greg. That technique may work in election campaign leaflets, making it look like one party is closer to the incumbent than in reality, but in what purports to be an encyclopaedia? No, thanks.

[Random832]

this one of the Munich population

I don't like that graph actually - it doesn't show anything interesting - too much lost against the background noise of world population growth.

The funny thing is, the more interesting graph (e.g. an "adjusted for inflation" graph of its share of the german or world population) definitely _would_ be original research, and certainly doesn't belong on wikipedia

Other issues, even in a straight graph of population vs time: the data points are chosen arbitrarily - why is there only one for 1369 and one for - looks like 1500, when there are three other points in between those in the table in the article? The whole left side of the graph is basically zero anyway, an inset showing just 1369-1700 with a separate scale would be nice.

This post has been edited by Random832:

[Jon Awbrey]

The funny thing is he may even be right about whatever graphs he specifically wants to kill — the problem is that he sees policy making as something like — fight for the policy to be whatever works best for the arguments i'm in right now and damn the consequences for every other topic i don't care about.

Wut? You're not trying to invoke one of those WP:INVALID «Reality Exists Almost Anywhere You Look» (WP:REAAYL) types of arguments, now are you?

Say It Ain't So !!!

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[TungstenCarbide]

Glad to see this has piqued some curiosity. For those who haven't gone to the talk page of the relevant "policy", the back-and-forth between Jayjg (T-C-L-K-R-D) and CBM (T-C-L-K-R-D) here is gut-bustingly funny (or pathetic, if one takes a kinder view of WP). It is a sterling example of Jayjg's willingness to argue completely outside the realm of reasonability. As a side note, it is also a good example of SlimVirgin (T-C-L-K-R-D) proxying for Jayjg -- she doesn't have a dog in this fight, but she's in there anyway, or was, at the beginning.

I managed to read the first paragraph where slimvirgin says graphs and percentages can be problematic.

She's absolutely right - graphs and percentages can be manipulated to be POV or OR ... just like words. Amazing thought, huh? If a paragraph is POV then fix it. If a graph mis-represents the data, then fix it. How hard is that?

The reasoning to ban graphs applies equally to words. Jeeze.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[emesee]

there's what?

lies, damn lies, and statistics

This post has been edited by emesee:

[gomi]

Lies, damn lies, statistics, damn lying statisticians, and Wikipedians.

In that order. Or ordure, as the case may be.

[Cla68]

The funny thing is he may even be right about whatever graphs he specifically wants to kill - the problem is that he sees policy making as something like - fight for the policy to be whatever works best for the arguments i'm in right now and damn the consequences for every other topic i don't care about.

Sometimes that approach makes good policy (I remember supporting SV in a policy proposal she was pretty clearly making just because someone had tried to stop her from including links in the 'see also' section of some animal rights article because it was also in a navbox, but which I thought was a good principle generally on the basis of banner-blindness etc), sometimes it... doesn't.

What!? Some administrators try to change the policies to support their editing agendas? No way! Hmm, could this be another reason for the establishement of an elected committee to govern policy maintenance and development?

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Son of a Yeti]

Oddly enough, in this case, yes, it's a textbook case of SYNTH. The graph shows measurements of CO2 at Mauna Loa, the world's largest active volcano, which is a real CO2 factory. Yet in the Global Warning article, the graph is placed in such a way as to suggest that it corroborates claims of a big man-made contribution to CO2 levels.

What a beautiful manipulation. Manua Loa is the greatest (in volume) volcano if your definition of active volcanoes covers ones that are asleep but can potentially reawaken. Its most recent eruption was in 1984 [1]. And in lava volume it's a minor volcano comparing it to its neighbor Kilauea.

You may know that CO2 is a well mixing gas while strong winds from a predictable direction at the elevation the measurements are made make it very easy to make the measurements windwards from all local sources. You may not know though that presently there are many CO2 measurement stations in the world and none of them defy the Mauna Loa increasing trend[2].


[1] The 1984 volcano activity is actually a final proof that you are wrong. Do you see a 1984 peak in the data series? In no, please explain why this volcano changes the measurements by the same amount whether it is active or not. Or more exactly why it disturbs the measurements by 1.5 to 2 ppm more every year, before during and after the eruption?

[2] By the way can you explain why Maula Loa undetectable CO2 emission increases more slowly during the present recession? I understand that you would strongly disagree with the alternative hypothesis pushed by corrupt scholars and liberal media, namely that during the crisis we burn less fossil fuels? Take note that the concentration still increases but more slowly which in your theory must mean local increasing emission while in the case of global atmospheric concentration even a decreased anthropogenic emission still increases the concentration because of a long lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere, assuming natural sources and sinks are close to being balanced.

This post has been edited by Son of a Yeti:

[Son of a Yeti]

I would object to the use of "310" as the anchor point for the y-axis. The chart might imply something much different to the casual observer if, for example, the scale was fixed at zero.

Why zero? When we had zero CO2 concentration in the history of the planet? It was about 200 ppm in the ice ages and about 280 ppm before we started cutting forrests and burning coal, oil, and gas.

So maybe it should be 280 instead of 310 but certainly not zero. Zero is no more sensible here than -100 or any random number.

I condemn you from now on to use only a temperature scale starting with absolute zero. Even for the next weekend weather forecast.

[Hell Freezes Over]

I would object to the use of "310" as the anchor point for the y-axis. The chart might imply something much different to the casual observer if, for example, the scale was fixed at zero.

This is one reason why graphs should be treated with extreme care, and may well be only justifiably used on wikipedia if they are re-drawn copies of graphs already produced elsewhere. There are real and sometimes substantial cognitive and perceptual issues that affect the comprehension of the information the graphs are expected to transmit to the readers. Various sources within the psychological literature have confirmed many times that the form of presentation has a large influence (books by Edward Tufte show some examples of these kinds of presentational effects). It may well be that Jayjg has a point, but one must deal with the matter separately for each use. It is another instance in which the overall wikipedia interpretation of consensus leads to sub-optimal results.

That's exactly right. And note that no one is arguing that the NOR policy should forbid user-created graphs. We're simply arguing that it shouldn't explicitly promote them. Then each case can be dealt with by the editors on the page.

[Random832]

That's exactly right. And note that no one is arguing that the NOR policy should forbid user-created graphs. We're simply arguing that it shouldn't explicitly promote them. Then each case can be dealt with by the editors on the page.

Saying on the policy page that it doesn't forbid them is not promoting them.

[TungstenCarbide]

That's exactly right. And note that no one is arguing that the NOR policy should forbid user-created graphs. We're simply arguing that it shouldn't explicitly promote them. Then each case can be dealt with by the editors on the page.

no one is arguing that the NOR policy should forbid user-created graphs

Bullshit, go read Jayjg's edit and the implication that it carries. He's removed the statement that said displaying data in a graph will not be forbade. The implication is that is could be forbiden.

We're simply arguing that it shouldn't explicitly promote them.

No, that's not what Jayjg's edit said.

A picture is worth a thousand words, it's often the best way to communicate information quickly. Any argument depreciating graphs because of the possibility of OR or POV is just as applicable to words. If there is a POV or OR problem with a graph, then fix the graph or delete it. Don't use it as an excuse to tinker with policy.

[One]

That's exactly right. And note that no one is arguing that the NOR policy should forbid user-created graphs. We're simply arguing that it shouldn't explicitly promote them. Then each case can be dealt with by the editors on the page.

For what it's worth, I've seen user generated content used for a lot of mischief. Not only graphs, but also composite images purporting to illustrate an event.

Anyhow, it was a recent addition. Jayjg was restoring the status quo.

User in question also seems to have a problem with the synth concept, which is one of the most abused rules in BLPs. Every single time I point it out, people argue, "no, synthesis only prevents new conclusions, I'm just writing that Smith said X, but evidence shows not-X." This argument happens over and over again if you look at the OR archives, but I'm glad people recognize synthesis for what it is. Insofar that SlimVirgin has helped shape that policy, I bless her for it.

[gomi]

That's exactly right. And note that no one is arguing that the NOR policy should forbid user-created graphs. We're simply arguing that it shouldn't explicitly promote them. Then each case can be dealt with by the editors on the page.

No, that's not quite right. You argue on the talk page to "treat each case on its individual merits", while CBM (T-C-L-K-R-D) points out that, as graphs are in image space, they're already covered, saying "the policy already says that images are not subject to the OR policy provided they are based on verifiable data", so that adding a statement that graphs (and percentages, for that matter) based on verifiable data do not violate WP:NOR (though they may violate WP:NPOV) merely clarifies that powerful admins such as yourself and Jayjg can't keep them out if they otherwise pass the NPOV test. It's a question of balance of power. You want to give more to the already powerful (WP:OWNers of pages, such as yourself). Tsk, tsk.

You go on to say:

Are there any remaining objections to putting the graph part back into Wp:NOR? And if so, please specify what they are. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I object. Graphs can be problematic for various reasons, including introducing (or appearing to introduce or over-emphasize) a POV. It's better not to mention them and let editors judge on a case-by-case basis. If we encourage them here, graphs will appear whether they're appropriate or not. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

All the time, Jayjg is pursuing his mad wiki-lawyering, calling CBM's calm and reasoned arguments "circular", before moving into a ritual threat posture thusly:

Do not again admonish me for things I have not done; in fact, please restrict your comments to discussion of the NOR policy, which is what this Talk: page is for. I will ignore future comments that are not restricted to discussions of policy. Jayjg (talk) 02:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg then proceeds to ignore CBM and focus on a random bystander, before clamming up entirely and silently reverting changes to the policy.

You, SlimVirgin, are again conspiring in the most pernicious way to create a more comfortable venue for your desired type of POV pusher, while disadvantaging the POV-pushers you oppose (since Jayjg and his posse are in firm control of the pages where he's worried about images). All of which contribute to the overall impression of Wikipedia as a biased, untrustworthy source of information about anything remotely controversial (and much beside).

[The Adversary]

I assumed Jayjg´s newfound principles was because of User:Timshifters work, like this. But then there are others doing similar stuff.

[Hell Freezes Over]

A picture is worth a thousand words, it's often the best way to communicate information quickly. Any argument depreciating graphs because of the possibility of OR or POV is just as applicable to words. If there is a POV or OR problem with a graph, then fix the graph or delete it. Don't use it as an excuse to tinker with policy.

That's *exactly* why we have to be careful. The addition of graphs counting as "routine calculations" is recent, and it's being opposed because it's describing a very powerful tool (something worth a thousand words, as you said) as equivalent to a "routine calculation," which is just false. Graphs can have a very powerful impact on presentation.

I wish posters here would look at the facts before commenting. If it's someone you don't like who's doing X, there's a sad tendency to jump on X as therefore necessarily evil, even if it means you have to change the facts to make it so.

That's exactly right. And note that no one is arguing that the NOR policy should forbid user-created graphs. We're simply arguing that it shouldn't explicitly promote them. Then each case can be dealt with by the editors on the page.

No, that's not quite right. You argue on the talk page to "treat each case on its individual merits", while CBM (T-C-L-K-R-D) points out that, as graphs are in image space, they're already covered, saying "the policy already says that images are not subject to the OR policy provided they are based on verifiable data", so that adding a statement that graphs (and percentages, for that matter) based on verifiable data do not violate WP:NOR (though they may violate WP:NPOV) merely clarifies that powerful admins such as yourself and Jayjg can't keep them out if they otherwise pass the NPOV test. It's a question of balance of power. You want to give more to the already powerful (WP:OWNers of pages, such as yourself). Tsk, tsk.

You go on to say:

Are there any remaining objections to putting the graph part back into Wp:NOR? And if so, please specify what they are. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I object. Graphs can be problematic for various reasons, including introducing (or appearing to introduce or over-emphasize) a POV. It's better not to mention them and let editors judge on a case-by-case basis. If we encourage them here, graphs will appear whether they're appropriate or not. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

All the time, Jayjg is pursuing his mad wiki-lawyering, calling CBM's calm and reasoned arguments "circular", before moving into a ritual threat posture thusly:

Do not again admonish me for things I have not done; in fact, please restrict your comments to discussion of the NOR policy, which is what this Talk: page is for. I will ignore future comments that are not restricted to discussions of policy. Jayjg (talk) 02:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg then proceeds to ignore CBM and focus on a random bystander, before clamming up entirely and silently reverting changes to the policy.

You, SlimVirgin, are again conspiring in the most pernicious way to create a more comfortable venue for your desired type of POV pusher, while disadvantaging the POV-pushers you oppose (since Jayjg and his posse are in firm control of the pages where he's worried about images). All of which contribute to the overall impression of Wikipedia as a biased, untrustworthy source of information about anything remotely controversial (and much beside).

This distortion is just unbelievable to me. What we're trying to do is not have the NOR policy describe user-generated graphs as "routine calculations." Regardless of whose POV it suits or doesn't suit, or which pages X or Y owns or wants to own, or any of the other silliness, there is no way a user-created graph that's not simply copied from a reliable source's graph, should be used in any article without extensive discussion on talk, bearing in mind that it might powerfully promote one POV, because of the power images have to persuade. NOR should *not* describe that casually as a "routine calculation," and say it's fine, go ahead, always allowed.

Gomi, I'd appreciate it if you'd tell people who you were on Wikipedia, that I indefblocked you, *why* I indefblocked you, and how you've had it in for me ever since. You've spent 18 months, two years? constantly criticizing me as if you're a disinterested bystander. Please come clean so that people can judge your posts in context.

[Jon Awbrey]

Those of you who still remember how things work in the Real World, ask yourselves —

How would the Editors of a Real Encyclopedia or Technical Reference Work handle this rather minor problem of graphical presentation?

Jon Awbrey

[Cla68]

A picture is worth a thousand words, it's often the best way to communicate information quickly. Any argument depreciating graphs because of the possibility of OR or POV is just as applicable to words. If there is a POV or OR problem with a graph, then fix the graph or delete it. Don't use it as an excuse to tinker with policy.

That's *exactly* why we have to be careful. The addition of graphs counting as "routine calculations" is recent, and it's being opposed because it's describing a very powerful tool (something worth a thousand words, as you said) as equivalent to a "routine calculation," which is just false. Graphs can have a very powerful impact on presentation.

I wish posters here would look at the facts before commenting. If it's someone you don't like who's doing X, there's a sad tendency to jump on X as therefore necessarily evil, even if it means you have to change the facts to make it so.

It seems to me that some verbiage addressing graphs in the NOR policy is ok. Perhaps something like, "Presenting data in a graph is not OR if the data is sourced. Data taken from more than one source, however, may violate WP:SYN. Disputed graphs presentations should be addressed on a case-by-case basis on the article's talk page." or something like that.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[EricBarbour]

Glad to see this has piqued some curiosity. For those who haven't gone to the talk page of the relevant "policy", the back-and-forth between Jayjg (T-C-L-K-R-D) and CBM (T-C-L-K-R-D) here is gut-bustingly funny (or pathetic, if one takes a kinder view of WP).

"Pathetic" is the best of all possible words. Not only is Jay's argument pathetic,
the way people are acting around him and SV is even more sad......

What's the point here? Jayjg and SlimVirgin will just edit war and keep it out. CBM wrote, "If there is really widespread objection to the change someone else will revert it". CBM had a chance to revert to support what he is currently advocating and he didn't. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And that, as they say, is that.

It seems to me that some verbiage addressing graphs in the NOR policy is ok. Perhaps something like, "Presenting data in a graph is not NOR if the data is sourced. Data taken from more than one source, however, may violate WP:SYN. Disputed graphs presentations should be addressed on a case-by-case basis on the article's talk page." or something like that.

That would be a good idea. Instead, there is nothing--and Jay intends to keep it that way.
So he can pull dirty tricks.

I managed to read the first paragraph where slimvirgin says graphs and percentages can be problematic.
She's absolutely right - graphs and percentages can be manipulated to be POV or OR ... just like words. Amazing thought, huh?

She oughta know, she fucks up the truth ever day....

SV, you've never blocked me. I have never had any kind of dispute with you, on WP or off.
And yet, I find your reality-distortion type of passive-aggressive manipulation quite disgusting.
If you were a good sysop, you would not support Jay in such a sleazy manner.
(Links available upon application.)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Lar]

That's exactly right. And note that no one is arguing that the NOR policy should forbid user-created graphs. We're simply arguing that it shouldn't explicitly promote them. Then each case can be dealt with by the editors on the page.

Who is "we" in this context?

You, SlimVirgin, are again conspiring in the most pernicious way to create a more comfortable venue for your desired type of POV pusher, while disadvantaging the POV-pushers you oppose (since Jayjg and his posse are in firm control of the pages where he's worried about images). All of which contribute to the overall impression of Wikipedia as a biased, untrustworthy source of information about anything remotely controversial (and much beside).

The best part about it is that it's not even clear what POV is going to be pushed once this policy scuffle is won. Classic.

Gomi, I'd appreciate it if you'd tell people who you were on Wikipedia, that I indefblocked you, *why* I indefblocked you, and how you've had it in for me ever since. You've spent 18 months, two years? constantly criticizing me as if you're a disinterested bystander. Please come clean so that people can judge your posts in context.

Comment on content, not the contributor.

It seems to me that some verbiage addressing graphs in the NOR policy is ok. Perhaps something like, "Presenting data in a graph is not OR if the data is sourced. Data taken from more than one source, however, may violate WP:SYN. Disputed graphs presentations should be addressed on a case-by-case basis on the article's talk page." or something like that.

Yes. Why would this statement not be acceptable?