|
|
Post by sɐǝpı ɟo uoıʇɐɹǝpǝɟ on Mar 3, 2016 14:45:49 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sɐǝpı ɟo uoıʇɐɹǝpǝɟ on Mar 3, 2016 18:11:43 GMT
by the way - if anyone wants to read the article, shoot me a PM and I'll send it over
|
|
|
|
Post by L'il Bird on Mar 3, 2016 19:08:25 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sɐǝpı ɟo uoıʇɐɹǝpǝɟ on Mar 3, 2016 19:21:32 GMT
you need to sign-in/pay to read the study. in any event, not really that interesting |
|
|
|
Post by Peter Bengtsen on Mar 3, 2016 22:00:27 GMT
you need to sign-in/pay to read the study. in any event, not really that interesting Yeah, that link is to an article about the academic journal article. Here are a few of my thoughts on it, also posted on UAA: I have just read the journal article. It comes across as rather gimmicky, and the foundation of the results it arrives at seems a bit weak. For example, the authors " expect 95 percent of artworks to lie within approximately two kilometers of a source (e.g., a home)". In other words, the assumption is made that Banksy would typically not travel further than 2 kilometers from his home to put up an artwork. The authors base this on a specific analytical component - a sigma value - which is " a typical value for ‘criminal’ movement in urban environments". The use of this particular sigma value should mean that the authors - for analytical, not necessarily moral, purposes - designate Banksy's activities as "criminal". However, at the end of the article they write: " While some see Banksy’s street art as illegal graffiti, there is often an element of political protest in his subversive epigrams. His spatial patterns are therefore similar to those of others who post political messages in public places." The statement that the spatial patterns are similar to that of others who post political messages in public places could potentially mean that the sigma value used to determine the expected distance from an artwork to a "source" would be affected, unless the sigma value for "criminal activity" and "political protest activity" happens to be exactly the same. This issue is not addressed in the article. This is just one problem with the article, and potentially the study, that jumped out at me when I first read it. Another is the very last paragraph of the article, which reads: " Ethical note: the authors are aware of, and respectful of, the privacy of Mr. Gunningham and his relatives and have thus only used data in the public domain. We have deliberately omitted precise addresses." This comes across as disingenuous and/or uninformed. I would suggest that, from an ethical point of view, the authors should have stuck to their original idea and kept the "suspect" anonymous. I would further suggest that they chose not to do this because they were aware of the media attention their work could potentially attract if they included the name. |
|
|
|
Post by sɐǝpı ɟo uoıʇɐɹǝpǝɟ on Mar 3, 2016 22:51:41 GMT
you need to sign-in/pay to read the study. in any event, not really that interesting Yeah, that link is to an article about the academic journal article. Here are a few of my thoughts on it, also posted on UAA: I have just read the journal article. It comes across as rather gimmicky, and the foundation of the results it arrives at seems a bit weak. For example, the authors " expect 95 percent of artworks to lie within approximately two kilometers of a source (e.g., a home)". In other words, the assumption is made that Banksy would typically not travel further than 2 kilometers from his home to put up an artwork. The authors base this on a specific analytical component - a sigma value - which is " a typical value for ‘criminal’ movement in urban environments". The use of this particular sigma value should mean that the authors - for analytical, not necessarily moral, purposes - designate Banksy's activities as "criminal". However, at the end of the article they write: " While some see Banksy’s street art as illegal graffiti, there is often an element of political protest in his subversive epigrams. His spatial patterns are therefore similar to those of others who post political messages in public places." The statement that the spatial patterns are similar to that of others who post political messages in public places could potentially mean that the sigma value used to determine the expected distance from an artwork to a "source" would be affected, unless the sigma value for "criminal activity" and "political protest activity" happens to be exactly the same. This issue is not addressed in the article. This is just one problem with the article, and potentially the study, that jumped out at me when I first read it. Another is the very last paragraph of the article, which reads: " Ethical note: the authors are aware of, and respectful of, the privacy of Mr. Gunningham and his relatives and have thus only used data in the public domain. We have deliberately omitted precise addresses." This comes across as disingenuous and/or uninformed. I would suggest that, from an ethical point of view, the authors should have stuck to their original idea and kept the "suspect" anonymous. I would further suggest that they chose not to do this because they were aware of the media attention their work could potentially attract if they included the name. that was one of my first thoughts as well - why not keep the subject anonymous? nothing in the article was anything not already out there in public, and it wasn't in-depth enough to really get their point across; it almost felt more "click bait" than genuine article worthy of academic journals. |
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Plip on Mar 3, 2016 23:23:04 GMT
Yeah, that link is to an article about the academic journal article. Here are a few of my thoughts on it, also posted on UAA: I have just read the journal article. It comes across as rather gimmicky, and the foundation of the results it arrives at seems a bit weak. For example, the authors " expect 95 percent of artworks to lie within approximately two kilometers of a source (e.g., a home)". In other words, the assumption is made that Banksy would typically not travel further than 2 kilometers from his home to put up an artwork. The authors base this on a specific analytical component - a sigma value - which is " a typical value for ‘criminal’ movement in urban environments". The use of this particular sigma value should mean that the authors - for analytical, not necessarily moral, purposes - designate Banksy's activities as "criminal". However, at the end of the article they write: " While some see Banksy’s street art as illegal graffiti, there is often an element of political protest in his subversive epigrams. His spatial patterns are therefore similar to those of others who post political messages in public places." The statement that the spatial patterns are similar to that of others who post political messages in public places could potentially mean that the sigma value used to determine the expected distance from an artwork to a "source" would be affected, unless the sigma value for "criminal activity" and "political protest activity" happens to be exactly the same. This issue is not addressed in the article. This is just one problem with the article, and potentially the study, that jumped out at me when I first read it. Another is the very last paragraph of the article, which reads: " Ethical note: the authors are aware of, and respectful of, the privacy of Mr. Gunningham and his relatives and have thus only used data in the public domain. We have deliberately omitted precise addresses." This comes across as disingenuous and/or uninformed. I would suggest that, from an ethical point of view, the authors should have stuck to their original idea and kept the "suspect" anonymous. I would further suggest that they chose not to do this because they were aware of the media attention their work could potentially attract if they included the name. that was one of my first thoughts as well - why not keep the subject anonymous? nothing in the article was anything not already out there in public, and it wasn't in-depth enough to really get their point across; it almost felt more "click bait" than genuine article worthy of academic journals. If Dismaland was still going, they'd probably have stuck a copy of their work onto a wall there or something. |
|
|
|
Post by j0hnny on Mar 4, 2016 9:30:07 GMT
If it was properly conducted I'd say it was the closest link so far. Not proof of him being the man behind the mask, but certainly would make him the main suspect.
|
|
|
|
Post by sɐǝpı ɟo uoıʇɐɹǝpǝɟ on Mar 4, 2016 10:57:31 GMT
If it was properly conducted I'd say it was the closest link so far. Not proof of him being the man behind the mask, but certainly would make him the main suspect. The problem is that they started with him being the suspect and excluded anyone else from the very beginning. not really a sturdy analysis if you pic a suspect and then try to find data to support your theory.... that's the same reasonijg innocent people go to jail |
|
|
|
Post by j0hnny on Mar 4, 2016 11:23:44 GMT
Am I right in saying that it said somewhere they did it to 10 or so suspects in this case? It would be reasonable to say that the way the research was conducted was a bit off, i am sure there would be 5000 other people just as likely to be Banksy if they didn't set out to place that particular person as him.
If only there was hard evidence that Banksy is ginger, has a scar across his left eyebrow and drives a 1989 ford Sierra, then this method of profiling would have a lot more oomph to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Mar 4, 2016 11:48:17 GMT
I don't who care who he may be or where he lives really. leave him alone. not interested
|
|
|
|
Post by sɐǝpı ɟo uoıʇɐɹǝpǝɟ on Mar 4, 2016 11:53:35 GMT
Am I right in saying that it said somewhere they did it to 10 or so suspects in this case? It would be reasonable to say that the way the research was conducted was a bit off, i am sure there would be 5000 other people just as likely to be Banksy if they didn't set out to place that particular person as him. If only there was hard evidence that Banksy is ginger, has a scar across his left eyebrow and drives a 1989 ford Sierra, then this method of profiling would have a lot more oomph to it. they briefly looked at other suspects, but when it came time to write the journal, they only focused one one.... a load of b.s. really. seems like a publicity stunt |
|
|
|
Post by nonconformist on Mar 4, 2016 17:58:14 GMT
Their funding was probably due to get pulled so they had to come up with something that would give them a bit of exposure  ? |
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Plip on Mar 4, 2016 20:56:33 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter Bengtsen on Mar 13, 2016 12:39:15 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Mar 13, 2016 13:07:32 GMT
if banksy did not exist, it would be necessary to create him. and shit
|
|
?