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?

[Jon Awbrey]

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.]

Sorry, Gomi, I haven't been able to stomach reading all of this nonsense — BTDT — but it's obviously turning into one of those hare-brained discussions that Wikipediots ought to sequester within their own interminable "policy" chat pages. So if you haven't already revealed your Crack Jack Prize somewhere above that I missed, could you do it now? In either case it's time to send these Mass Debaters back to their favorite Jerk Circle.

Jon Awbrey

[TungstenCarbide]

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.

for what it's worth, I've seen people do the same with words.

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

Nevertheless, you've got to admit that that edit carries some ominous overtones.

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.

The original didn't specifically forbid graphing of routine numbers, the recent addition merely spelled it out; but now that Jayjg's revert stands, it can always be pointed to as implying such. In that way, his revert altered policy.

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.

The first thing I did when I read this thread was go look at Gomi's links and Jayjg's edits. For as far as the eye could see, nothing but miles and miles of jayjg's edits that appear to be pushing a certain agenda. I dunno, maybe I'm wrong and jayjg is a paragon of virtue and neutrality.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

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.

The truly enlightened, 33rd-degree WikiMMORPG Master will always keep all options open. Like the Sophists of Greek antiquity, he believes that the POV is not as important as the Pushing.

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.

Where's the entertainment value in that?

[Milton Roe]

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.

The truly enlightened, 33rd-degree WikiMMORPG Master will always keep all options open. Like the Sophists of Greek antiquity, he believes that the POV is not as important as the Pushing.

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.

Where's the entertainment value in that?

And besides, you all know the real problem here: WP editors are told they must not connect the dots. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) This may lead to original thinking, and that starts with O and that rhymes with Jimbo and that stands for drool.

Although editors are responsible for seamlessly stitching together a summary of the world's reliable and verifiable literature on a given subject, with due weight being given to each major academic viewpoint, THEY ARE FORBIDDEN TO PRESENT DATA VISUALLY. Just verbally.

WP:NOGRAVENIMAGES

(IMG:http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll191/Shrlocc/goldencalf.jpg)

Is SlimVirgin a real person? What were her parents thinking when they named her that?

I'd say they were awfully unrealistic, based on the looks of these girls I've been seeing in the shopping malls lately.

These things happen. I asked my parents the same, and they said when you're spawning, you don't think too much.

[gadfly]

I just think it's ironic that this sort of snippiness is occurring in the one thread we've had recently in which Poetguy's expertise in statistics would have been really useful. Assuming it hadn't gone completely off-topic, that is...

It's a combination of expertise in statistics and cognitive-perceptual issues that would be needed. Both writing and graphs are there to supply information to the reader. The problem is that synthesis always happens when one is writing and juxtaposing information in a way that is not merely a brain-dead aping of what one reads in just one other source. In the writing case, one merely sorts it out so that the distortion of information one is wanting to supply does not become too great. There is no reason why the same cannot be done for graphs, and so a brain-dead blanket application of "all graphs are bad" is certainly stupid.

The key issue is whether the intended information the writing and/or graphs are meant to supply is sensible given that one is trying to faithfully represent what the accepted and reliable sources say.

In other encyclopaedias, one sorts it out by first, having experts advise on content (and wikipedia doesn't seem to emphasize this enough, and even has some resistance to it for reasons to do with the thinking behind its initial establishment that are held onto like religious dogma at times), and second, by trying to have people write it who are mature enough to recognise their own biases and be willing to deal with them (which wikipedia doesn't do because it wheels out the false mantra of "the enyclopaedia that anyone can edit" at these times, together with "there's no reason why children can't do the editing", and similar stupidity, such as "one must always be wary not to assume good faith" and "no personal attacks", when it is clear that the validity of the editors as encyclopaedia writers necessarily involves assessing their suitability of reliability, trustworthiness, and so on.)

That is why the notion that this issue is really a minor one is true if one is thinking of other encyclopaedias that are written mostly by academics, but becomes a major one when one is dealing with wikiipedia. The systemic flaws in it, established at the time it was started or shortly afterwards, can feed through to infect all aspects of its working.

[Jon Awbrey]

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.]

Sorry, Gomi, I haven't been able to stomach reading all of this nonsense — BTDT — but it's obviously turning into one of those hare-brained discussions that Wikipediots ought to sequester within their own interminable "policy" chat pages. So if you haven't already revealed your Crack Jack Prize somewhere above that I missed, could you do it now? In either case it's time to send these Mass Debaters back to their favorite Jerk Circle.

Jon Awbrey

Seriously …

In my old WR age I become more and more concerned about our RW reps. I've always suspected it, and I've seen one definite case lately, where casual visitors actually take away the impression that our more semi-sane WR folk actually buy all that Wikipedia Goobledy-Geek about Doo Bees & Dont Bees (WP:DB&DB) and Gooφus And Gallant (WP:GAG).

Believe me, it doesn't say much for our Powers of Critique when they think that of us.

Jon Awbrey

[gomi]

The thread started life as an attack, the usual assumption of bad faith, that because Evil Editor A is doing something, that something must be dreadful, even though, if anyone else were doing it, you'd probably all applaud it.

What part of this, the initial post in this thread, was "an attack"?

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.

The question was, in essence "Why is this uber-editor, not usually associated with silly policy pages like WP:NOR, suddenly expending much circular logic and verbiage on this particular topic? What is his motivation?" The question stands, though it has been largely answered (in my view, at least) by our own The Adversary in this post.

As regards assumptions of bad faith, I can only say that in Jayjg's case, that assumption is richly deserved. Another mark of the Wikipedia Reality Distortion Field™ in which you appear to live is the delusion that one should properly "assume good faith". What utter, hollow, sanctimonious bullshit. When I see someone pushing a virulently partisan a point of view as hard as Jayjg, it takes all my effort to simply assume bad faith and not conspiracy or other dark motives. If someone else cared to do it -- someone would. But Jayjg does it and you've "got his back". I rest my case.

In my old WR age I become more and more concerned about our RW reps. I've always suspected it, and I've seen one definite case lately, where casual visitors actually take away the impression that our more semi-sane WR folk actually buy all that Wikipedia Goobledy-Geek about Doo Bees & Dont Bees (WP:DB&DB) and Gooφus And Gallant (WP:GAG).

I'll make an exception to my usual rule of neither reading nor replying to Jon's impenetrable punning to say that the point of this thread when I started it is to shed light on the way powerful Wikipidiots subtly alter their own internal policies (however stupid we may think they are) to reinforce their power and control. It has grown the side-benefit of becoming a thread showcasing the ways in which another powerful Wikipidiot plays the "I'm hurt, I'm damaged" card when rational arguments fail her.

Of course, to you (and me) none of this is particularly surprising, but it is through these repeated examples that we teach. It's not a matter of buying into the bogosity (or lack thereof) of WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, or other "gobbledygook" as policy for something resembling an encyclopedia, it is to highlight the ways in which power continues to be abused.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I just think it's ironic that this sort of snippiness is occurring in the one thread we've had recently in which Poetguy's expertise in statistics would have been really useful. Assuming it hadn't gone completely off-topic, that is...

Moderator's note: I split the completely off-topic posts into another thread which may be found here.

[EricBarbour]

Thank you! About time.

That bitch really knows how to play WR regulars.

[Cla68]

The question was, in essence "Why is this uber-editor, not usually associated with silly policy pages like WP:NOR, suddenly expending much circular logic and verbiage on this particular topic? What is his motivation?" The question stands, though it has been largely answered (in my view, at least) by our own The Adversary in this post.

Of course, to you (and me) none of this is particularly surprising, but it is through these repeated examples that we teach. It's not a matter of buying into the bogosity (or lack thereof) of WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, or other "gobbledygook" as policy for something resembling an encyclopedia, it is to highlight the ways in which power continues to be abused.

Well, I don't think this kind of stuff will be going on for much longer. I believe (well, hope), that a policy oversight committee will be established before the end of this year whose members will be the only editors allowed to edit policies.

[Sarcasticidealist]

Well, I don't think this kind of stuff will be going on for much longer. I believe (well, hope), that a policy oversight committee will be established before the end of this year whose members will be the only editors allowed to edit policies.

Bwuh? What could possibly be your basis for believing that?

[Kato]

To be fair to Jayjg; within the strange internal logic of WP, home-made graphs could be used to make political points that far exceed the touted brief of "neutrality".

I also very much doubt that any credible encyclopedia would include ad-hoc graphs and charts that forward political positions on controversial matters - unless they were used to illustrate that position itself and with extreme caution.

An "encylopedia" such as Wikipedia, which lacks credibility from the start, should probably steer clear of them like the plague.

[Milton Roe]

To be fair to Jayjg; within the strange internal logic of WP, home-made graphs could be used to make political points that far exceed the touted brief of "neutrality".

I very much doubt that any credible encyclopedia would include ad-hoc graphs and charts that forward political positions on controversial matters.

An "encylopedia" such as Wikipedia, which lacks credibility from the start, should probably steer clear of them like the plague.

You mean like global warming?

If I make a drawing of CO2 levels from 1857 to 1957 done by chemical means by different chemists, and it comes out looking like Johnny's crayon drawing on the wall, does that count as "handmade" to advance a position? How about if some advocacy group does the same?

Graphs are useful, because sometimes you can just look at one and say "That must be bullshit data; no natural process would do that." The human mind can't do that with a table of numbers.

[TungstenCarbide]

To be fair to Jayjg; within the strange internal logic of WP, home-made graphs could be used to make political points that far exceed the touted brief of "neutrality".

If people are capable of writing neutrally then they are capable of both creating neutral graphs and identifying non-neutral ones.

I also very much doubt that any credible encyclopedia would include ad-hoc graphs and charts that forward political positions on controversial matters - unless they were used to illustrate that position itself and with extreme caution.

How does that enter into this debate? No one is asking that POV pushing graphics be sanctioned.

An "encylopedia" such as Wikipedia, which lacks credibility from the start, should probably steer clear of them like the plague.

I think better advice for encyclopedia writers would be to avoid cliches like the plague.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[Kato]

To be fair to Jayjg; within the strange internal logic of WP, home-made graphs could be used to make political points that far exceed the touted brief of "neutrality".

If people are capable of writing neutrally then they are capable of both creating neutral graphs and identifying non-neutral ones.

This is Wikipedia. People aren't even capable of writing neutrally about Hummus.

I also very much doubt that any credible encyclopedia would include ad-hoc graphs and charts that forward political positions on controversial matters - unless they were used to illustrate that position itself and with extreme caution.

How does that enter into this debate? No one is asking that POV pushing graphics be sanctioned.

What is a "POV pushing graphic"? Or more to the point, what isn't a "POV pushing graphic"?

[TungstenCarbide]

I also very much doubt that any credible encyclopedia would include ad-hoc graphs and charts that forward political positions on controversial matters - unless they were used to illustrate that position itself and with extreme caution.

How does that enter into this debate? No one is asking that POV pushing graphics be sanctioned.

What is a "POV pushing graphic"? Or more to the point, what isn't a "POV pushing graphic"?

As used on the 'Earths Atmosphere' article, I'd say this isn't a "POV pushing graphic".

needs references, however.


(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7a/Atmosphere_gas_proportions.svg/180px-Atmosphere_gas_proportions.svg.png)


Or how about this chart, one of the most famous ever drawn;

(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/29/Minard.png/480px-Minard.png)

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[Emperor]

I once had an argument with a user who wanted to include a chart, but didn't have any units along with it to describe the numbers in it. What's hilarious, in retrospect, is that the mediator who showed up even needed to ask me why I objected.

Some people just see these charts and graphs as a way to inject their opinion.

[TungstenCarbide]

Some people just see these charts and graphs as a way to inject their opinion.

Interesting, I've seen people do the same with words. Should words be banned from Wikipedia too?

[Kato]

Some people just see these charts and graphs as a way to inject their opinion.

Interesting, I've seen people do the same with words. Should words be banned from Wikipedia too?

Yes.

In fact, for everyone's sake, just remove the damn mess of a site already. It is failing society's need for credible, reliable information.

[Cla68]

To be fair to Jayjg; within the strange internal logic of WP, home-made graphs could be used to make political points that far exceed the touted brief of "neutrality".

If people are capable of writing neutrally then they are capable of both creating neutral graphs and identifying non-neutral ones.

I like graphs. I like the graphs in the Global Warming article. They look attractive and make it easier to understand what the numbers are supposed to be saying. Of course, whether the graphs' messages are true or not is another thing. That's for the people who look at the graph to decide, presumably by checking the source of the data if they need to.

The point here is that most of us apparently don't understand why Jayjg and SlimVirgin appear to be trying to keep any mention of graphs out of the NOR policy. I guess I could go to the policy talk page and propose some wording, but I have better things to do, like go watch the Japan vs Korea World Baseball Classic game, which I believe is on now. Instead, I hope that Jayjg will knock off his games on that policy talk page and try to reach a compromise.

[Somey]

Apropos of nothing, there's a bit of silliness happening on that particular policy page, with someone claiming to be "Parvez Sagar" insisting on inserting biographical info about himself right into the middle of the WP:NOR policy.

Aside from that, the WP:NOR policy currently states that...

Disputed images, graphs, or other visual presentations should be addressed on a case-by-case basis on the article's talk page.

It seems to me that this is the crux of the issue, in that this bit seems reasonable until someone actually goes to the talk page and runs into whatever editor or group of editors has staked out their territorial claim to the article in question.

In cases like the now-famous Global warming (T-H-L-K-D) "hockey stick" graph, there's probably no way you're going to get people to stop warring over things like that, other than the traditional method of banning the opponent with inferior numbers and/or less admin support. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing in that particular case, but there's almost no denying that that particular graph, while technically accurate, has a very narrow y-axis. I mean, at the risk of sounding like a GW skeptic, it's actually parts-per-million - so if the y-axis were zero to 1 million, you'd obviously just see a straight line, not a hockey stick. So the real problem is convincing people that a rise of 70 ppm, and a predicted further rise of 100 ppm in the next 40 years or so, is potentially catastrophic. Maybe the graph helps to do that, but it seems to me that skeptics can point to the hockey stick and say that their opponents are manipulating the visuals in a propagandistic way, all while other (and potentially more immediate) environmental problems like deforestation, water toxicity, moronic land-use and agricultural policies, and general human overpopulation (the biggest problem of all) are pushed aside in the media, etc., etc.

Anyway, one thing I might suggest is to clarify the text above to make it clearer that images, including photographs, should not be used to violate the NPOV policy, which itself is woefully unclear on the issue of accurate, yet still potentially misleading, images. IMO, simply removing the words "nor forbid displaying data in a graph" from the "Routine Calculations" section doesn't really help much one way or the other - it just makes the person who's removing the wording look nit-picky. (Not to mention that since it's coming from Jayjg, it also looks rather suspicious.)

[Lar]

To be fair to Jayjg; within the strange internal logic of WP, home-made graphs could be used to make political points that far exceed the touted brief of "neutrality".

If people are capable of writing neutrally then they are capable of both creating neutral graphs and identifying non-neutral ones.

I like graphs. I like the graphs in the Global Warming article. They look attractive and make it easier to understand what the numbers are supposed to be saying. Of course, whether the graphs' messages are true or not is another thing. That's for the people who look at the graph to decide, presumably by checking the source of the data if they need to.

The point here is that most of us apparently don't understand why Jayjg and SlimVirgin appear to be trying to keep any mention of graphs out of the NOR policy. I guess I could go to the policy talk page and propose some wording, but I have better things to do, like go watch the Japan vs Korea World Baseball Classic game, which I believe is on now. Instead, I hope that Jayjg will knock off his games on that policy talk page and try to reach a compromise.

Why not try wording along the lines of what you proposed before?:

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.

That seems like an excellent compromise to me.

[Jon Awbrey]

To be fair to Jayjg; within the strange internal logic of WP, home-made graphs could be used to make political points that far exceed the touted brief of "neutrality".

If people are capable of writing neutrally then they are capable of both creating neutral graphs and identifying non-neutral ones.

I like graphs. I like the graphs in the Global Warming article. They look attractive and make it easier to understand what the numbers are supposed to be saying. Of course, whether the graphs' messages are true or not is another thing. That's for the people who look at the graph to decide, presumably by checking the source of the data if they need to.

The point here is that most of us apparently don't understand why Jayjg and SlimVirgin appear to be trying to keep any mention of graphs out of the NOR policy. I guess I could go to the policy talk page and propose some wording, but I have better things to do, like go watch the Japan vs Korea World Baseball Classic game, which I believe is on now. Instead, I hope that Jayjg will knock off his games on that policy talk page and try to reach a compromise.

Why not try wording along the lines of what you proposed before?:

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.

That seems like an excellent compromise to me.

Try to understand, Lar, The Wikipedia Review is not some kind of annex to Wikipediot Chat Pages. Wikipediot Tenets Of Faith are not taken for granted here. Indeed, it is a continual insult to the intelligence of Real World denizens to act as though your most peculiar Wikipediot premisses are somehow automatic.

Those of us who have been paying attention to the progress of critique and deconstruction at the Review know what Wikipediot Policy means in Practice. It's a crock from top to bottom and nothing can be built on it.

It is not the job of The Wikipedia Review to resolve the incoherencies of Wikipediot Doctrine. Go waste your own time somewhere else trying to do that. Not here.

Jon Awbrey

[EricBarbour]

Try to understand, Lar, The Wikipedia Review is not some kind of annex to Wikipediot Chat Pages.

You forgot the smiley. That indicates that you're kidding.......

'Cuz, damn, you coulda fooled me. Certain people here damn well do treat WR like
an annex, where they can say things that will get them in trouble onwiki.

If WP ever puts up its OWN lightly moderated forum, WR is gonna get reeeeeally quiet.

[Jon Awbrey]

Looks like I have to do it myself …

The post quoted below is ON topic and NOT a piece of HFO fancruft.

Please restore.

Thanks,

Jon

In my old WR age I become more and more concerned about our RW reps. I've always suspected it, and I've seen one definite case lately, where casual visitors actually take away the impression that our more semi-sane WR folk actually buy all that Wikipedia Goobledy-Geek about Doo Bees & Dont Bees (WP:DB&DB) and Gooφus And Gallant (WP:GAG).

I'll make an exception to my usual rule of neither reading nor replying to Jon's impenetrable punning to say that the point of this thread when I started it is to shed light on the way powerful Wikipidiots subtly alter their own internal policies (however stupid we may think they are) to reinforce their power and control. It has grown the side-benefit of becoming a thread showcasing the ways in which another powerful Wikipidiot plays the "I'm hurt, I'm damaged" card when rational arguments fail her.

Of course, to you (and me) none of this is particularly surprising, but it is through these repeated example that we teach. It's not a matter of buying into the bogosity (or lack thereof) of WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, or other "gobbledygook" as policy for something resembling an encyclopedia, it is to highlight the ways in which power continues to be abused.

Okie Dokie, just so long as everyone — well, all of us ≥½sane folks — remains clear about that.

And I'm sorry if I seem a bit jaded and exasperated by all this rot, but maybe the fact that I've explained this whole bit about WP:NOR and WP:NPOV a hundred times already, once or twice I'm sure sans puns, makes me so. The folks who don't see it by now most likely just don't wanna see it. You can only teach the teachable, you know.

Jon (IMG:http://wikipediareview.com/stimg9x0b4fsr2/1/folder_post_icons/icon9.gif)

P.S. And just what's so impunetrable about my penning, anyway?

[Jon Awbrey]

Try to understand, Lar, The Wikipedia Review is not some kind of annex to Wikipediot Chat Pages.

You forgot the smiley. That indicates that you're kidding ……

'Cuz, damn, you coulda fooled me. Certain people here damn well do treat WR like
an annex, where they can say things that will get them in trouble onwiki.

If WP ever puts up its OWN lightly moderated forum, WR is gonna get reeeeeally quiet.

Don't let's knock quiet … quiet lets you hear the music … and the music helps you think …

Thing is, as tol-e-rant as we all like to be, that doesn't mean we oughta forget our purpose. The one thing we learned from HFO's mighty attempts to e-viscerate this thread was that there must be something really Kabal-Krucial going on here. It's all De Ja Vu to me, of course, so I have a good guess at what that might be — and no, it's never something so petty as some sort of Inter-Semitic Rivalry — but I do get the feeling that even some long time Re*Viewers still have their gnoses too far up a knot-hole to see the tree. 4get the 4est. Of course, spending long hours being wiled away by HFO's emails and pmails probably doesn't do a lot for their probity.

Jon (IMG:http://wikipediareview.com/stimg9x0b4fsr2/1/folder_post_icons/icon9.gif)

[Moulton]

Free the MOOG:SYNTH reprobates!

Don't let's knock quiet … quiet lets you hear the music … and the music helps you think …

All we are saying...
Is give music a chance

[Jon Awbrey]

Free the MOOG:SYNTH reprobates!

Don't let's knock quiet … quiet lets you hear the music … and the music helps you think …

All we are saying …
Is give music a chance

For my part, I was talkin bout the Music of the Spheres, but whateva ticks your tock …

Jon

[Herschelkrustofsky]

In cases like the now-famous Global warming (T-H-L-K-D) "hockey stick" graph, there's probably no way you're going to get people to stop warring over things like that, other than the traditional method of banning the opponent with inferior numbers and/or less admin support.

Hey, just like IRL!

The one thing we learned from HFO's mighty attempts to e-viscerate this thread was that there must be something really Kabal-Krucial going on here.

Interesting point.

[Somey]

Thing is, as tol-e-rant as we all like to be, that doesn't mean we oughta forget our purpose. The one thing we learned from HFO's mighty attempts to e-viscerate this thread was that there must be something really Kabal-Krucial going on here...

I have no doubt about that, but is it likely to be something specific, like an effort to remove a particular chart or group of charts from some article (or series thereof), or is it just a general dislike of graphs, given that they're more difficult to change and/or get rid of if the article-owner (be it Jayjg or whomever) doesn't like them? I personally don't think this is likely to be part of an effort to remove a specific chart, or remove all charts from a specific article or set thereof.

For one fairly obvious example, look at the WP article on The Holocaust (T-H-L-K-D). There are three tables in the Victims and Death Toll section that could conceivably be made into charts, though this one submitted by Crum375 (T-C-L-K-R-D) , really makes more sense as-is (i.e., a table). In particular, there's one showing that the estimated number of Jews murdered by the Nazis peaked in 1942 and declined somewhat sharply in the years thereafter. I can see why Jayjg would object to this data being presented graphically, and I could even see how particularly sensitive Jewish folks might think any graph of that nature might tend to "trivialize" the Holocaust and therefore be offensive. (The first table, a breakdown of the numbers of Holocaust victims by demographic category, was originally a table of non-Jewish victims only - apparently the Jewish victim-count was added to the top of the chart, and the table moved higher up in the article, only a few months ago.)

But if we're going to try and find that one specific instance of someone trying to insert a chart into a Jayjg-owned article to which he objected, we could be at it for quite some time, unless someone just happens to remember it off the top of their head. I still tend to think we're making more of this than is really justified - it could very well be that Jayjg just happened to notice that (somewhat recent) addition to the WP:NOR page on his watchlist, remembered some unpleasant experience he had a while back with some chart he objected to, reacted by removing the wording, and then got all huffy when challenged on it. Typical Jayjg behavior, really, except that he doesn't seem to have banned the opponent yet.

[Random832]

For one fairly obvious example, look at the WP article on The Holocaust (T-H-L-K-D). There are three tables in the Victims and Death Toll section that could conceivably be made into charts, though this one submitted by Crum375 (T-C-L-K-R-D) , really makes more sense as-is (i.e., a table).

Why is a table an image? Especially a table that was clearly originally created using mediawiki markup? There is actually a guideline against that.

[Somey]

Why is a table an image? Especially a table that was clearly originally created using mediawiki markup? There is actually a guideline against that.

It has to be a deliberate attempt to reduce the amount of edit-warring over the numbers, right? If you look at the history of the article, a significant portion of the edits are from people trying to insert new ethnic/social groups into the list of victims (chiefly Serbs, Bosnians, Muslims in general, Russian POW's, and Rom people, or whatever the plural is for Rom people), or increase the numbers for one or more of those groups. Maybe even the majority of the edits, at least within the last year or two.

Don't get me wrong, though - an subject/article like that, and specifically a section like that one, is a no-win proposition for pretty much everyone, at least in an actively open-wiki context. There's just no way to avoid it, without ongoing article "protection" or some other lockdown methodology.

[Random832]

Don't get me wrong, though - an subject/article like that, and specifically a section like that one, is a no-win proposition for pretty much everyone, at least in an actively open-wiki context. There's just no way to avoid it, without ongoing article "protection" or some other lockdown methodology.

[edit for more verbiage that doesn't really merit its own post] I did suspect something like that, to be honest - that (and my general inactivity) is why I didn't charge in waving the manual of style at people... but there's got to be a better solution.

Put the table in a template and protect that - although... the image isn't even protected, and images have one-click revert for everyone. I guess it's a barrier to entry via obscurity though (but having it as a template with no navlinks would work much the same way)

This post has been edited by Random832:

[Jon Awbrey]

Thing is, as tol-e-rant as we all like to be, that doesn't mean we oughta forget our purpose. The one thing we learned from HFO's mighty attempts to e-viscerate this thread was that there must be something really Kabal-Krucial going on here …

I have no doubt about that, but is it likely to be something specific, like an effort to remove a particular chart or group of charts from some article (or series thereof), or is it just a general dislike of graphs, given that they're more difficult to change and/or get rid of if the article-owner (be it Jayjg or whomever) doesn't like them? I personally don't think this is likely to be part of an effort to remove a specific chart, or remove all charts from a specific article or set thereof.

You know what they say —

Think Global … Act Loco …

Of course there's always some hill to take, some concrete bit of desert sand at any given moment in time, and of course a peculiar entity like Jayjg will always have his peculiar fixations, but the Kabal could hardly hold together if that's all there was.

I tell you again, it's about the prototyping of a medium, a system with a particular set of properties.

Gomi had it close enough with his highlighting of power. We are talking about a mercenary force — taken as a whole they have no side but the Kabal side. They would be perfectly happy selling arms to both sides of any given conflict — they are like a phone company in that — but it's hard to get away with playing both sides at the same moment in time, so they will settle for selling the greatest service to the highest bidder.

Good grief, they are even using the exact same language to cook the Charts & Graphs issue as they used to cook the Primary Source issue.

It's a terrible burden being the only one here with any LTM, especially at my age.

Jon Awbrey

[CharlotteWebb]

For one fairly obvious example, look at the WP article on The Holocaust (T-H-L-K-D). There are three tables in the Victims and Death Toll section that could conceivably be made into charts, though this one submitted by Crum375 (T-C-L-K-R-D) , really makes more sense as-is (i.e., a table).

Why is a table an image? Especially a table that was clearly originally created using mediawiki markup? There is actually a guideline against that.

Well at least it's sortable! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[One]

For one fairly obvious example, look at the WP article on The Holocaust (T-H-L-K-D). There are three tables in the Victims and Death Toll section that could conceivably be made into charts, though this one submitted by Crum375 (T-C-L-K-R-D) , really makes more sense as-is (i.e., a table).

Why is a table an image? Especially a table that was clearly originally created using mediawiki markup? There is actually a guideline against that.

Well at least it's sortable! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Heh.

[My monthly one-word reply quota--Just think this is an unusually funny observation.]

[Jon Awbrey]

Another good comment that deserves framing for future reference —

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.

Folks who were not born yesterday are probably hearing echoes about now —

Are primary sources easier or harder to misuse than secondary sources?

So what in the devil is really going on here?

Jon Awbrey

[CharlotteWebb]

For one fairly obvious example, look at the WP article on The Holocaust (T-H-L-K-D). There are three tables in the Victims and Death Toll section that could conceivably be made into charts, though this one submitted by Crum375 (T-C-L-K-R-D) , really makes more sense as-is (i.e., a table).

Why is a table an image? Especially a table that was clearly originally created using mediawiki markup? There is actually a guideline against that.

Yeah, I wonder if nobody actually thought of putting it in a template and protecting the template instead.

[CharlotteWebb]

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?

Well to be fair, errors in images require more skill to fix than errors in text. The Holocaust statistics table-image illustrates that well actually. Not to directly question the veracity of the research, but let's just suppose one of the numbers was discovered to be high or low by a few thousand, enough to require urgent correction. Text would be a lot easier to work with.

If it can't be done as html (because we want pie charts or rotated text or jagged lines or whatnot), Wikipedia should at least use the SVG format so that bad data can be corrected by somebody not in possession of the excel spreadsheet or whatever the original was exported from, and without having to re-create the graphic from scratch.

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb:

[Milton Roe]

For one fairly obvious example, look at the WP article on The Holocaust (T-H-L-K-D). There are three tables in the Victims and Death Toll section that could conceivably be made into charts, though this one submitted by Crum375 (T-C-L-K-R-D) , really makes more sense as-is (i.e., a table).

Why is a table an image? Especially a table that was clearly originally created using mediawiki markup? There is actually a guideline against that.

Yeah, I wonder if nobody actually thought of putting it in a template and protecting the template instead.

Per Theodore Roosevelt, I'm sure they'd accept Tweedledee if you agree to call it Tweedledum.

We have all kinds of templates for data on Wikipedia all over the place. Look at the chemistry elementboxes, for instance. Every one is an original synthesis of data about the chemical element, and every article on every chemical element has one. Whoop dee do. Tag them for deletion, Jayjg. They don't all have the same properties for each element, but just the coolest ones. Somebody who likes carbon fixed up a the allotropes of carbox template box, too. Damn, a walled-garden. Look at that fun box of properties for diamond. A gem. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) Too bad it must go.