So, Listen to Wikipedia won a Kantar information is Beautiful award (Silver in the Interactive Visualization category), which is pretty awesome!
There were a lot of really amazing entries, so you should check them out. (Seriously, a lot of great stuff there; it’s an honor to be featured next to them.)
I couldn’t help but notice one thing, though: the Kantar IIB Awards are described as “Open, non-profit awards celebrating excellence in data visualization and information design.” But, the winningest entry, the overall “Most Beautiful” award (also took gold in our category), went to Bloomberg, for Bloomberg’s Billionaires, a visualization of the world’s top 100 billionaires, their net worth, and how much money they “made” or “lost” in the last day. More concerning, the description of the methodology is notably rough and hand-wavy, and the data used isn’t even made open. Finally, the visualization designers aren’t credited by name, just Bloomberg Visual Data.
I guess it just struck me as ironic that the top open, non-profit award could go to a for-profit project exalting massively for-profit individuals, featuring opaque data, methods, and authors.
(If you read this far, you’re now a 2-centinaire, which will be donated on your behalf to Wikipedia, courtesy Kantar IIB prize money. :D )
(And if you’re wondering how to do it right, look to Bostock. Dude’s an inspiration, borderline infallible, it’s wacky.)