Unintentional image in ggplot lesson graph

[anacost]

Hi,
I believe the python-ecology-lesson has similar plots as the R-ecology-lesson.
You could discuss the same issue datacarpentry/R-ecology-lesson#520

It would be in your ggplot episode
https://github.com/datacarpentry/python-ecology-lesson/blob/gh-pages/_episodes/07-visualization-ggplot-python.md

Maybe you have a different solution.

[maxim-belkin]

Hi Ana. Thank you for bringing this issue up to my attention.

This lesson indeed has similar plots. However, I'd like to oppose to the suggestion to act based on such comments unless the reporter can make a strong argument that data was purposefully crafted to look phallic. Here is why.

1. Data are data. Researchers and engineers (and our lessons are designed for them) have to (learn how to) work with data no matter what analogies and abstractions it draws in their minds. If we change data based on this comment today, we'll create a loophole and anyone with similar in nature but different in specifics comments will be able to make requests to change data. In this specific situation their brain drew phallic images and they were offended by that. Note, that this is not data that is offensive, it's the image that their brain creates.

2. Let's step back and think about what happened. The attendee informed the instructor(s) that data looks phallic to them. This means that they looked at the data, it created some (phallic) images in their brain, and it was offensive to them. Now, what if they come across a person with a name "Rich Dickens". And what if they meet Rich at a SWC workshop? Will they ask us to ask Rich not to come to the workshop? Now, "Rich Dickens" is a made-up version of names that do exist out there (link).

3. Imagine a doctor who has to perform a surgery and who goes... "oh, that thing down there looks phallic to me. Sorry, not going to do the surgery unless we replace that thing with something else." Will you trust such a doctor?

4. What about such scientific terms as Turdus maximus, Piloerection, Coccyx, Uvula, Arsole? Shall we ban them or give them new names? Only to find a few years later that these new names are offensive to someone else in a different way?

5. Within The Carpentries this issue is up to the CAC (Curriculum Advisory Committee)... Shall we, um, rename CAC?

6. Finally, my point is that instead of changing data, The Carpenties should consider converting this whole experience into a lesson on how to work with data that does draw such or different analogies in our brains and how to look past them. If all I can think of is what data reminds me of, I have a high chance of missing an important feature in that data.

[wrightaprilm]

We had a good giggle about this in the maintainer's meeting in January, I think. I have no position on this other than that I am not mature enough to handle it. Whatever others decide is cool with me.

[kekoziar]

I'm curious: from a ecology perspective, when would you plot species of different taxonomies against each other? That is, when would you compare birds against rodents against reptiles against rabbits?