Yeah about that, the text is incredibly smeared, and it’s in french. Pardon me for not knowing french. 😜
not point measurements - as you are insinuating.
Which would have been about equally obvious to many if the text was in Swahili!! No matter how clear.
Funny how people reward such lazy posting, where adding a link to the source could have cleared it up easy.
Pictures could be completely fake for all we know without a source.
While not understanding French is understandable, Google Translate and other tools can help with that nowadays. You ought to be careful when levying critique on a post, and ensure it is valid. Your mistake was noticed by me in this case, but this could very well be the misinformation against which you caution.
Regarding the laziness in sourcing: I agree that sourcing is not properly provided here. A reverse image search surfaces that many of the plots are available here and refers to the source also stated on the image (Apur), which seems to be an entity with regularly does analyses regarding mobility in Paris, which has analysed these topics before.
Whether you trust this source is still up to you, but the source is not simply an anonymous person on the internet.
So what you say is, that I should put A LOT OF EFFORT into figuring out the validity, because OP put ZERO EFFORT into it, and just research the entire thing myself? Typing manually what OP could have just copy-pasted. That’s INSANE!
If OP want’s to show something, and maybe make a point, why not include the link where he got the picture from? It’s a simple copy-paste! It’s insane that people find this to be OK, when it’s basically not much more than noise without the source.
If you don’t want to spend the time, you could have simply critiqued the image for being hard to read and interpret, as you are doing now - and requested they provide the source of the image (or the data). That would have been perfectly valid - as this image has seemingly gone through a lot of jpeg-ification and screeshotting, making captions and labels hard to read.
Yeah I could, I guess I was a bit annoyed by the laziness of the post.
And I maintain it’s bad style to not include a simple link to where “he” got the photo.
As someone else mentioned, that’s how fake news are often spread.
Yeah about that, the text is incredibly smeared, and it’s in french. Pardon me for not knowing french. 😜
Which would have been about equally obvious to many if the text was in Swahili!! No matter how clear.
Funny how people reward such lazy posting, where adding a link to the source could have cleared it up easy.
Pictures could be completely fake for all we know without a source.
While not understanding French is understandable, Google Translate and other tools can help with that nowadays. You ought to be careful when levying critique on a post, and ensure it is valid. Your mistake was noticed by me in this case, but this could very well be the misinformation against which you caution.
Regarding the laziness in sourcing: I agree that sourcing is not properly provided here. A reverse image search surfaces that many of the plots are available here and refers to the source also stated on the image (Apur), which seems to be an entity with regularly does analyses regarding mobility in Paris, which has analysed these topics before. Whether you trust this source is still up to you, but the source is not simply an anonymous person on the internet.
So what you say is, that I should put A LOT OF EFFORT into figuring out the validity, because OP put ZERO EFFORT into it, and just research the entire thing myself? Typing manually what OP could have just copy-pasted. That’s INSANE!
If OP want’s to show something, and maybe make a point, why not include the link where he got the picture from? It’s a simple copy-paste! It’s insane that people find this to be OK, when it’s basically not much more than noise without the source.
If you don’t want to spend the time, you could have simply critiqued the image for being hard to read and interpret, as you are doing now - and requested they provide the source of the image (or the data). That would have been perfectly valid - as this image has seemingly gone through a lot of jpeg-ification and screeshotting, making captions and labels hard to read.
Yeah I could, I guess I was a bit annoyed by the laziness of the post.
And I maintain it’s bad style to not include a simple link to where “he” got the photo.
As someone else mentioned, that’s how fake news are often spread.
I agree with your basic point, about not automatically trusting sources.