Hell Freezes Over
Thu 19th March 2009, 1:55am
QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Thu 19th March 2009, 1:10am)
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.
QUOTE(gomi @ Thu 19th March 2009, 1:21am)
QUOTE(Hell Freezes Over @ Wed 18th March 2009, 5:31pm)
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
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.