Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Major paradigm shifts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Fifteen major paradigm shifts

Original - Major paradigm shifts in the history of the world, as seen by fifteen different lists of key events. There is a clear trend of smooth acceleration through biological evolution and then technological evolution.
Original - Major paradigm shifts in the history of the world, as seen by fifteen different lists of key events. There is a clear trend of smooth acceleration through biological evolution and then technological evolution.
Reason
I feel this meets all of the criteria because
  • it is of high-resolution and high-quality
  • visually contributes to the articles it is in
  • and I feel it is of Wikipedia's highest quality
Articles this image appears in
Technological singularity, Accelerating change
Creator
Ray Kurzweil; recreated by Tkgd2007 in SVG format.
  • Support as nominator --TIM KLOSKE|TALK 00:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose I can't for the life of me tell what it is trying to depict. Paradigm shifts, But paradigms of what? And the timeline is next to unreadable, as well. Clegs (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Clegs. Matt Deres (talk) 01:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose what Clegs said, plus it's just a simple graph with no wow, what ever the bigger implications may be, it's not special as a picture I am afraid. Mfield (talk) 02:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Clegs. I note the original was by Ray Kurzweil, whose writing I find obscure as well. Pete Tillman (talk) 03:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I have removed it from the articles. I think this is pretty clear-cut OR. Thegreenj 06:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I've put it back. The synthesis is by Ray Kurzweil, not some Wikipedian. A near-identical graph is on p.19 of The Singularity is Near, as the image page says. ~~ N (t/c) 20:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per others, hardly gripping out of context, and can it really be CC when the differences from Kurzweil's graph are trivial? ~~ N (t/c) 20:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose because Wikipedia is not a valid source. You will need to plot some based reliable sources (and I disagree with most of the "too hard to understand" opposes). gren グレン 06:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Then perhaps you can explain what the 15 shifts are, based on the information present in the graph. Or perhaps you could explain what the point of the graph even is. Something about plotting time since present against time to next "event" on a logarithmic scale strikes me (on the face of it) as somewhat circular, but that could well be because I don't know what the graph is trying to show. Matt Deres (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. As I understand it, the graph shows that the time gap between paradigm shifts is getting smaller as each subsequent shift takes place (the paradigm shifts being identfied by the authors in the legend). The implication is that we will reach some sort of technological singularity when the curve intersects the x-axis. Pstuart84 Talk 16:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sorry, another pile-on vote. Clegs said it. Crassic! (talk) 02:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - very nice diagram, but having examined it at full size I still haven't got a clue what any of it means. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 17:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The diagram is ridiculous and highly misleading. As Pstuart has said, it implies a technological singularity. For arithmetic reasons, it points to the present as the projected time of singularity, and it must do so regardless of the events plotted. I explained this in more detail at Talk:Accelerating_change. Dzhim (talk) 00:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 07:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)