Monday, January 19, 2009

Gentleman and Ihaka's behaviour towards the mainstream press is despicable.

While they are to be commended for helping to develop a quality re-engineering of S-Plus, the evidence is accumulating that Gentleman and Ihaka are behaving in a way towards the mainstream media that is leaving a dark stain on their reputation.

They have not made a high profile attempt to correct some of Vance's misleading statements on where the R programming language actually came from. AT&T researchers developed the R programming language. Gentleman and Ihaka, with many followers and contributors helping them, developed a software that implements that programming language.

Their failure to publicly address the allegations of lies and distortions in Vance's article strongly suggest that they lied to Vance, in a sad and pathetic attempt to claim full credit for designing the user interface of the R software product.

Is R a quality statistical software product. Yes. But Gentleman and Ihaka's integrity is negated by their behaviour towards the mainstream press.

( That does not excuse Vance or his NYT colleagues from not doing their homework of course.)

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

Why has the New York Times been so sloppy for so many years?

Because a newspaper has two functions : to inform and to entertain.

Newspapers entertain by telling interesting stories with a writing style that is pleasing to the reader. The better the writing, the more enjoyable the article is to the reader. This has a huge effect on their revenues.

Newspapers inform, by doing backup research so that the journalist can be confident that his work is as truthful, fair , and balanced as he can make it. Articles are more informative if the journalist has done enough backup research so that he can be confident that he knows what he is talking about.

The problem is that such research costs time, and time is money. Being informative and accurate does not boost revenues to the same degree as being entertaining.

This is even more of a problem for the New York Times than other papers, because the NYT has a very prestigious reputation, and they have tended to coast on their reputation over the years.

But still , if Vance just did maybe five more hours of research, JUST A FEW HOURS, he could have written an article on R that was not so untruthful and misleading.

very sloppy, Vance.

Ashlee Vance doesn't know what he's talking about

It is quite obvious that Ashlee Vance doesn't know what he is talking about , when he writes about R. He clearly didn't do even the minimum of research.

This is typical of the New York Times. For years we've seen articles by journalists who didn't bother to do their homework. The NYT has a history of coasting on their reputation.

First, Vance's statements that R is especially easy to use compared to other statistical tools is a falsehood.
Second, Vance leaves the reader to believe that R is a new type of statistical software, a new invention whose innovations users benefit from. Not true. He gives no credit to the AT&T researchers who designed the S programming language. The R team did not design the user interface for R. R uses the same user interface as the older S and S-Plus proprietary products , which is primarily the S programming language. R is a copycat of S-Plus.