Editing 1945: Scientific Paper Graph Quality
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
==Explanation== | ==Explanation== | ||
− | {{ | + | {{incomplete|Created by a PowerPoint. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}} |
− | |||
− | The title text states that among the bad quality graphs, the ones | + | {{w|Microsoft Paint}} was first introduced in 1985, and {{w|Microsoft PowerPoint}} debuted in 1990, allowing for the easy creation of graphs by computer users. The comic suggests that these easy-to-use tools are responsible for decreasing the overall quality of graphs, presumably by enabling a large number of inexperienced designers. |
+ | |||
+ | {{w|Microsoft_PowerPoint#Use_it_less|Critics of PowerPoint}}, such as {{w|Edward_Tufte#Criticism_of_PowerPoint|Edward Tufte}}, have argued that the software is ill-suited for reporting scientific analyses. Many scientific journals nowadays [https://www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/contribinfo/prep/prep_revfigs.xhtml explicitly forbid the use of PowerPoint in their instructions for authors.] | ||
+ | |||
+ | The title text states that among the bad quality graphs, the ones "with qualitative, vaguely-labeled axes and very little actual data" are the worst. While this may indicate that the problem with PowerPoint era graphs is that they seem to focus on getting the point across (qualitative as in "you get the idea") over accuracy (little actual data), this graph fits precisely into this category. The axis labeled "good" and "bad" is entirely qualitative, and it is doubtful that any actual data was used to make the graph. Its quality is doubtful, and it might represent more of an impression, or opinion, than an actual fact. This is somewhat self-deprecating, as the comic features exactly that sort of lambasted graph. | ||
==Transcript== | ==Transcript== | ||
− | + | {{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}} | |
− | :'''General quality of charts and graphs in scientific papers''' | + | :'''General quality of charts and''' |
+ | :'''graphs in scientific papers''' | ||
− | :[A graph is shown with the y-axis on the | + | :[A graph is shown with the y-axis on the origo labeled "bad", on the arrowhead labeled "good", and the x-axis being a timeline labeled with decades from 1950s to 2010s.] |
:[The pre-1993 and post-2015 parts are white, with increasing quality before 1990 and after 2015. The 1993-2015 part indicates bad quality and is highlighted in grey, labeled "PowerPoint/MSPaint era".] | :[The pre-1993 and post-2015 parts are white, with increasing quality before 1990 and after 2015. The 1993-2015 part indicates bad quality and is highlighted in grey, labeled "PowerPoint/MSPaint era".] |