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 ?

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

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

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.

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.

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?

My Guess —

See Penis Size Statistics
See Jay-Pecker War

Ja Ja

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.

And don't you dare change it, like we did routinely 4 years ago, you young whippersnapper!

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

I think HK is more of a Klingonologist.

Ja Ja

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

there's what?

lies, damn lies, and statistics

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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:



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).

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

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.





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.

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

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.

"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......

And that, as they say, is 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.

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.)

Who is "we" in this context?



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.



Comment on content, not the contributor.



Yes. Why would this statement not be acceptable?

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.


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. 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





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

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.

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

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

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.


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.

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

Thank you! About time.

That bitch really knows how to play WR regulars.

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.