I disagree with this definition, and even if I did agree I think this doesn't describe the article. As just one example: > Beware of Big Data hubris. TheGoogle

I disagree with this definition, and even if I did agree I think this doesn't describe the article. As just one example: > Beware of Big Data hubris. TheGoogle Flu Trends project, which claimed, with much fanfare, to anticipate seasonal flu outbreaks by tracking user searches for flu-related terms, proved to be a less reliable predictor of outbreaks than a simple model of local temperatures. (One problem was that Google’s algorithm was hoodwinked by meaningless correlations—between flu outbreaks and high-school basketball seasons, for example, both of which occur in winter.) Like all data-based claims, if an algorithm’s abilities sound too good to be true, they probably are. If that's not a claim about Big Data, then what is?