Jan. 7-13 issue of The Economist

  • Thread starter rachmaninoff
  • Start date

rachmaninoff

Anyone who has the Jan. 7-13 issue of The Economist, look at the graphic on the lower-right corner of p. 70.

Source: Wikipedia
:uhh:
 
6,171
1,275
You're saying they used a graphic from the wikipedia?
 

rachmaninoff

edit:

I forgot that Economist has different national editions, I was looking at the US version, in different versions look for the article "Bayes rules" in the Science & Technology section (might be on a different page number).
 

rachmaninoff

zoobyshoe said:
You're saying they used a graphic from the wikipedia?
At first I thought they just based their graphic on wikipedia information. But looking more closely at the graphic, Economist's scales are identical to the ones on wiki, though the colors were changed.

Compare with:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Normal_distribution_pdf.png (first three series)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Poisson_distribution_PMF.png (first two)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gamma_distribution_pdf.png (first three)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pareto_distributionPDF.png (one and three)

all linked from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_distribution

:grumpy:
 

rachmaninoff

They definitely used wiki graphics!

Look at the 'segmentation' of the Poisson distribution plot in the Economist. Compare the locations of the segments with the wiki graphic. Same image, with some photoshop magic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Poisson_distribution_PMF.png
 
6,171
1,275
I don't read The Economist. I'm just trying to figure out what you're wanting people to notice.

I take it you feel this is a bad thing for them to use Wikipedia as a reference?
 

rachmaninoff

zoobyshoe said:
I take it you feel this is a bad thing for them to use Wikipedia as a reference?
As an only reference, yes.
 

berkeman

Mentor
55,699
5,783
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:N...bution_pdf.png [Broken]

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License."
 
Last edited by a moderator:

rachmaninoff

Oh I know it's legal. I think it's ridiculous that a major publication titled "Economist" couldn't find a more reliable reference for statistics methods than wikipedia.
 
6,171
1,275
rachmaninoff said:
As an only reference, yes.
Yeah, I agree that's odd.
 
138
4
I don't have The Economist, but the images that you linked were just distribution graphs. How are they used in the Economist article? Was it just something like "Here's what a Poisson distribution looks like." If so, I don't see any problem with using Wikipedia's graphic.
 

rachmaninoff

It just seems so unprofessional. You think of journalists of doing "real" investigations and thoroughly researching their subjects... by contrast wikipedia is a pit full of inaccuracies. And the part about them being too lazy to plot their own graphs (a two minute task)?
 
138
4
If you looked at that graph and thought it to be accurate, especially for your purposes, what journalistic integrity are you threatening? Besides - what real investigation is a journalist going to do about a probability distribution? At least with the folks at wikipedia, people (plural) who actually understand the material are more likely to write and edit the articles instead of a journalist who might know nothing of the subject at the time. Also, just because the writer sites wikipedia as a source doesn't mean he/she doesn't know enough about the topic to know that the images he/she took from wikipedia are reliable.

Have you ever seen text books that make sine waves by juxtaposing halves of ovals? I wish they would use wikipedia.
 

Related Threads for: Jan. 7-13 issue of The Economist

Replies
3
Views
464
Replies
15
Views
772
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
17
Views
1K
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • Posted
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
3K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top