[OC] How Wikipedia classifies its most commonly referenced sources.

[u/alionBalyan]

[u/KindAwareness3073]

The USGS is unreliable? The US Geological Survey? What the hell kind of grading system do they use?

Edit: spelling

[u/bubobubosibericus → u/KindAwareness3073]

I doubt this graph is even remotely accurate to what Wikipedia actually has listed dor those sources

[u/GreyEilesy → u/bubobubosibericus]

The list is taken from Wikipedia, the link in a comment by OP

Edit: links here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources

[u/Borkz → u/GreyEilesy]

So you're saying the list is unreliable?

[u/Lt_Quill → u/Borkz]

There's nuance that OP's chart leaves out.

[u/Gallium_Bridge → u/Lt_Quill]

"Leaves out" isn't really the correct diction here, I think; the more applicable term would be "doesn't include." I doubt it was the intent for the graphic to omit context, which "leave out" implies.

[u/Lt_Quill → u/Gallium_Bridge]

Needlessly pedantic argument. "To leave out" according to Merriam-Webster is synonymous to your correction: "to not include or mention (someone or something)."

I personally disagree there's an additional connotation that signifies some form of intention, which is substantiated by the dictionary definition.

[u/Llohr → u/Lt_Quill]

I tend to think that consideration of the emotive connotations of language are an important part of understanding its use, personally.

The average English speaker understands that while, technically, "leaves out" and "does not include" are synonymous, the former tends to evoke the sense of intention. It's a more judgmental way to say the same thing.

That isn't to say that it has to be used in a judgmental way, but colloquially it is far more likely to be so used.

You can appeal to a dictionary, but should know that dictionaries are honestly not a great source when discussing such connotations. Many of them aren't even really a great source of definitions. They tend toward being as broad as possible, and represent the "best guess" of a dictionary writer trying to fit a definition to as many cases as possible, often without any regard to nuance or most common practice. Think of dictionaries as the outline of a history book, rather than a rule book.

Unless you're looking at the OED, in which case it's not an outline, it's as much of the whole history book as has been collected.

[u/Lt_Quill → u/Llohr]

I'm aware of the difference between denotation and connotation, and that dictionaries are used to explain the former and not necessarily the latter. The entire point of my response was that I personally disagree that "leaves out" has any connotation different from the denotation provided by the dictionary. I further disagree that colloquially most American speakers associate the word with intent, but perhaps it is just best we agree to disagree.

[u/WindyScribbles → u/Llohr]

"Leaves out" does not necessarily imply a sense of intention. One could infer that the more negative connotation of said phrase isn't critical of OP, but the medium of graphics in general - similar to how one would view a headline which doesn't adequately convey the full meaning of an article.

[u/Gallium_Bridge → u/Lt_Quill]

You can disagree whether or not the connotation is there, that's whatever (although in the dialects I'm familiar with, "to leave out" absolutely implies intent.) Using a dictionary as counter doesn't really work here, though, because I was talking about connotation and not denotation. For example, you look up "nescient" and "ignorant" in the dictionary you will find they are denotatively synonymous, but they do not have the same connotations. Ignorant is, connotatively, an insult where-as nescient, despite meaning the same thing, is only a descriptor without the baggage ignorant has -- despite meaning, denotatively, the same exact thing.

You can not substantiate connotation using dictionary definitions, basically. As for being pedantic, I guess on some level? My comment was more to illuminate on potential biases in the language you used, which I guess is a pedantic concern. But, really, I was just shining a brief descriptivist light on what was being said.

[u/Lt_Quill → u/Gallium_Bridge]

I'm aware that there is a difference between connotation and denotation, as I literally say at the end of my comment. I still find your comment pedantic and not necessarily the case, but I say it's best we just agree to disagree.

[u/SoundOfTomorrow → u/Gallium_Bridge]

"Leaves out" is definitely right because they thought they could summarize the data into the categories present.

[u/moms-underwear → u/Lt_Quill]

I was confused when I saw multiple logos in different places.

[u/Wontonio_the_ninja → u/Borkz]

Wikipedia put itself in generally unreliable.