File talk:Marine Plastic Pollution - weight.tif
Hello! I was perusing your contributions, and just came across this image and another related image from PLOS which you are apparently placing in your article. As a general reader, and a person who thinks the public at large is pretty ignorant of the underpinnings of the climate change debate and related topics, I have a problem with these images. Plainly stated, I don't understand them, because they are rather complex and abstract in what they endeavor to communicate. I would get much more meaning from a couple of bar graphs, I think. My difficulty stems from my perception that the image seems to be discussing mass, density, and particle size, along with geographic distribution, in the same graphic. I can't wrap my squirrel brain around it! According to the PLOS article, the images are merely illustrating the question "where does the marine plastic go?" Since the answer in the article is, "we can only guess, but it probably ends up in marine sediments, which we think is a bad thing."
Here are some issues I have: 1. Do you feel that these images contribute to understanding of your article's topic in proportion to their share of article "real estate" on the page? I believe they are subject to misinterpretation by many readers, with the four image quadrants potentially being interpreted as a changing situation over time, or being ignored due to the extreme ambition of the image to communicate a vast amount of information abstractly. Your "average" reader (e.g., me), who, according to the basic principles of WP (my guess), ought to be enlightened by an article, may be alienated by the complexity of the graphic.
2. The marine plastics issue, while not inconsequential, is not currently (to my knowledge) seen as being in the same league as ocean acidification, climate change, or even overfishing, so does your article intend to give coverage to the subtopic of plastics in proportion to the image space allocated to these abstruse (to me) images in your article?
3. I realize this is only a sandbox article, and I feel guiltily voyeuristic in examining it, let alone questioning the utility of your chosen images (most of which are very useful); In any case, I believe that resources like WP are used by everyday people worldwide to help determine their positions on issues affecting the future of the planet. Getting the facts across to people in a neutral fashion, without "induced ambiguity" from bad writing (ubiquitous on WP, as we both know) and confusing images (also ubiquitous) is how WP can be a "global force for good." When it fails to get the facts across, it fuels the Trumputinization of our world, which is probably inevitable, but why not postpone it a bit?
4. As you may have noticed, a number of WP math, tech and science articles (outside of GA, FA, etc) are written by experts to impress their peers. Such articles may benefit the authors, but, really, are they anything more than minimally peer-reviewed storms in a teacup? Do they serve any higher purpose than self-aggrandizement? I am not accusing you of having such a motive, nor do I feel that most peer-reviewed published research serves a higher purpose, but I would implore you to endeavor not to make WP any more abstruse than it already is.--Quisqualis (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for your advice. The sandbox you refer to is excluded from web search engines and is not a public "article". It is basically a private working space, and I have no idea at this stage whether I'm going to use a frame from that image. I agree Wikipedia should provide coverage of key areas accessible to the general reader. Overall I think it does. I see nothing wrong with Wikipedia including also some technically challenging articles, nor do I see that as necessarily involving "self-aggrandizement". You may find Simple English Wikipedia more aligned to what you are looking for, and perhaps a better read for Trumputans. Telling other editors how to write without walking the talk is unlikely to get much interest, though you might get attention if you write some exemplary articles yourself. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)