Talk:RStudio

Puffery or serious examples?

On 2024-02-19T14:14:48, user:192.41.114.224 deleted major references describing the need for reproducibility in research and examples using R Markdown vignettes and Jupyter notebooks, claiming, "‎Reproducible analyses with R Markdown vignettes: this is puffery and OR reference synthesis", leaving only an unsubstantiated claim that, "R Markdown vignettes and Jupyter notebooks make the data analysis reproducible. R Markdown vignettes have been included as appendices with tutorials on Wikiversity."

I respectfully disagree with this deletion. DISCLAIMER: I have used RStudio to create R Markdown vignettes for over 15 years, including creating the ones included as appendices to articles on Wikiversity, cited in notes to this article that were deleted with this edit by user:192.41.114.224.

I think that the support that RStudio provides for reproducible research via R Markdown vignettes are a key advantage of RStudio, and I think that should be appropriately described in this article. That discussion should, I think, include citations to key references like the classic work of Popper (1968) and the more recent survey by Baker (2016) plus the books by Xie et al. describing how to do it.

Accordingly, I am reverting this edit by user:192.41.114.224. I hope other Wikipedia editors will agree that the material I'm restoring merits retention in this article. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@Cyrej: I do not agree that a brief description of the need for reproducibility is "puffery". I've restored my previous comments to that effect, which you deleted, but as a "note", not in the primary text. I hope you will find that acceptable. Thanks for your efforts to Wikipedia:Prime objective: to give "every single person on the planet ... free access to the sum of all human knowledge." DavidMCEddy (talk) 15:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I was wrong when I jumped straight to calling it "puffery", i.e. flouting wikipedia conventions deliberately with some motivation such as sneakily promoting RStudio, and I take this back. You think the passage gives important context and motivation, and you would be right in general. It would not be out of place, even necessary, in, for example, the introduction section of a paper. Here's where I'm coming from: On wikipedia it looks strange to bring in citations to sources which are about general concepts and not directly related to the subject of the article. While the sources are good and the text is true to the sources, they say nothing about RStudio. To place them in the article and make the connection in the next sentence strikes me as original research and synthesis WP:SYNTH. Unfortunately, having a lot of citations to definitions and general concepts is also a hallmark of unverifiable articles trying to look like they have more sources than they do.

Certainly it looks better as a note, as if to give a supplementary definition and context, and we could agree to leave it there. It would be ideal if you could find some published source which makes the connection, containing both a definition/discussion of reproducibility and connecting it to RStudio. CyreJ (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

R courses

R courses given by Dr Pablo 196.189.123.32 (talk) 13:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)