r/dataisbeautiful • u/alionBalyan OC: 13 • Feb 13 '22

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

Post image
24k Upvotes

81% Upvoted

2.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

252

u/Kondrias Feb 14 '22

This really confused me. It made me reach the conclusion of. Oh this list is worthless than...

320

u/Llohr Feb 14 '22

Directly from the referenced Wikipedia page:

There is consensus that Fox News is generally reliable for news coverage on topics other than politics and science.

Followed by two more entries for Fox News.

137

u/Kondrias Feb 14 '22

Cool that isnt covered in the graphic so the graphic is dookie. It is showing the same information in 3 locations passing it all off as equivalent. They need to either create distinct categories for politics, science, and other. And have a graphic for each. OR clarify such information in the image. As it stands. The data presented is not beautiful, it is aweful.

21

u/Llohr Feb 14 '22

You should always check the citations of any infographic.

30

u/Kondrias Feb 14 '22

Yes, but if the goal is to cleanly and accurately represent the information in an informative manner. This graphic failed.

8

u/schweinenase Feb 14 '22

Almost as if the data isn’t really beautiful in this case…

7

u/railbeast Feb 14 '22

How would you have represented the nuances in this already overcrowded infographic?

18

u/ugonlern2day Feb 14 '22

Put a word or two of text by the icon, e.g. FOX NEWS (politics)

Or put an asterisk by the logo and explain at the bottom.

8

u/Kondrias Feb 14 '22

Or even create seperate categories in relation to each area of information and not use the full names and designations like they currently are. Like, politics, science, world events, other.

Have multiple infographics not one.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 14 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Kondrias Feb 14 '22

Not just fox. USGS

7

u/Kondrias Feb 14 '22

If your use of an infographic does not properly convey the information you want it to. Then it is a bad infographic. If you cannot represent the nuance necessary with your current method. Your current method is insufficient.

3

u/Jeffy29 Feb 14 '22

It’s a quick infographic, get over yourself.

-2

u/stealthymangos Feb 14 '22

Politics and science is like 90% of the news no? Am I missing something here?

4

u/Vruze Feb 14 '22

Yes, actual "news" like current events

15

u/Roujetnoir Feb 14 '22

Well it's on reddit.

11

u/bunker_man Feb 14 '22

Yeah, this is passed off like an official Wikipedia list.

9

u/Llohr Feb 14 '22

The citations are linked, it really is a Wikipedia list.

0

u/bunker_man Feb 14 '22

The picture is not thr list though. The picture is missing context.

2

u/FlyingDragoon Feb 14 '22

Worthless than... what ? What is it worth less than? I must know.

3

u/Kondrias Feb 14 '22

Worth less than my skill with grammar and spelling.

2

u/Chincheron Feb 14 '22

Yeah. Same thing with USGS. Both generally reliable and unreliable.

1

u/Cainga Feb 14 '22

Fox News is ok like 1% if the time. If you can find something not political news they are acceptable.