| Author |
|
Joe Mayer
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 24 January 2005
Posts: 1397
|
| Posted: 16 September 2005 at 7:35am | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
James and JB, this may be nitpicking, but I think those classify as fact rather than information.
(edited to reference who its to)
Edited by Joe Mayer on 16 September 2005 at 7:36am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
James C. Taylor
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4705
|
| Posted: 16 September 2005 at 7:44am | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Joe, really, if information is not fact, is it even information? Come on. You can do better than that.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 134007
|
| Posted: 16 September 2005 at 7:45am | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
If it is not fact, it is called "disinformation".
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mike Tishman
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 25 July 2005
Posts: 229
|
| Posted: 16 September 2005 at 7:47am | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
James C. Taylor wrote:
| You do realize that this is wrong. What, pray
tell, is the bias in "James C. Taylor was born on 11 July 1961 in
Lorain, Ohio"? |
|
|
Both of those examples only have meaning in terms of other symbols, and
as such are embedded in matrices of discourse which have inherent
biases.
John Byrne wrote:
| Millions of people dine at McDonald's. Does that make it a fine restaurant? |
|
|
No, but it means it's a restaurant, and at a bare minimum implies that
the food is edible and highly unlikely to kill you immediately. It may
not be the tastiest or healthiest food around, but if people eat it
every day, you can be fairly sure that the little cardboard boxes have
food in them, and not rocks or rat poison. Furthermore, McDonalds posts
its nutritional information publicly, so people eating there know what
they're getting, and as a result can be assumed to take responsibility
for any negative health consequences which may result.
Your analogy supports my point, not yours. Suing Wikipedia over the
quality of information found in an entry is, even in the most
charitable interpretation, akin to being one of those people who sue
McDonalds because their cheesburgers made them fat.
John Byrne wrote:
| If I have a mode of conveyance with a means of
locomotion on each corner, which requires I put fuel into it on a
regular basis, and which can be used to haul great weights, it does not
matter how many people call it a car, it will still be a horse. |
|
|
Nonsense. If everyone calls it a "car," then it's a "car," because the
word "car" means whatever the people who use the word in actual
practice use it to mean. Meaning follows usage, not vice versa.
Jason Fulton wrote:
| I'm confused....defamation of character is tolerated if it involves the opinions of third parties? |
|
|
Of course it is. If Joe Blow once said to a newspaper "Mike Tishman
killed his wife and buried her in the back yard," it's not defaming my
character to print the following:
"Joe Blow claims that Mike Tishman killed his wife and buried her in the back yard"
Because Joe Blow did claim that, and quoting him is not defamation of
character. Joe Blow might be defaming my character, but quoting Joe
Blow is not.
John Byrne wrote:
| If it is not fact, it is called "disinformation". |
|
|
In certain contexts, but not the ones applicable here. In most contexts, disinformation is a sub-category of information.
Edited by Mike Tishman on 16 September 2005 at 7:48am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
James C. Taylor
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4705
|
| Posted: 16 September 2005 at 7:52am | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
Mike Tishman wrote:
| Both of those examples only have meaning in terms of other symbols, and as such are embedded in matrices of discourse which have inherent biases. |
|
|
If you have to elevate the discussion to the intrinsic meaning of language in order to "prove" your point, you don't have one. For your tautology to work, existence and the perception of same are in and of itself is bias which renders the meaning of bias moot.
As a recovering "smartest guy in the room", I strongly suggest you work less hard at purposefully obfuscating things that are clear so that you can be comfortably smug in your intellect.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Francis Grey
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 07 August 2005
Posts: 771
|
| Posted: 16 September 2005 at 7:53am | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
If Wikipedia sells opinion and calls it "information," how is that different than McDonald's selling rat poison and calling it "food?" Both are harmful misrepresentation.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 134007
|
| Posted: 16 September 2005 at 7:56am | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
Mike Tishman: In most contexts, disinformation is a sub-category of information.***** You just crossed the line into the Idiot Zone. I'll not be wasting any more time on you.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Brian Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 July 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 31465
|
| Posted: 16 September 2005 at 7:59am | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
I've decided that Mike T owns stock in Wikipedia.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mike Tishman
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 25 July 2005
Posts: 229
|
| Posted: 16 September 2005 at 8:01am | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
James C. Taylor wrote:
| If you have to elevate the discussion to the intrinsic meaning of
language in order to "prove" your point, you don't have one. |
|
|
Bullshit. You're the one who brought it to that level. JB said that
encyclopedias aren't biased, which is a laughable assertion and I
called him on it. You and JB brought out the limit cases, where
discussion of intrinsic biases in language flies hardest in the face of
common sense and seems most absurd, though it is still quite
defensible, and I defended it. Your response here is tantamount to
saying "Nuh-uhh!" which is really no response at all.
James C. Taylor wrote:
| For your
tautology to work, existence and the perception of same are in and of
itself is bias which renders the meaning of bias moot. |
|
|
Existence and perception of same are identical for all practical
purposes. Objective reality that we can't perceive might as well not
exist for all the difference it makes.
James C. Taylor wrote:
| As a recovering "smartest guy in the room", |
|
|
You must have recovered very well indeed. I would never have guessed
you were once the smartest guy in any room. Thanks for the advice
though, condescending, insulting, and point-dodging though it was.
John Byrne wrote:
| You just crossed the line into the Idiot Zone. I'll not be wasting any more time on you. |
|
|
That's OK, you crossed over a few pages ago yourself. Have fun getting your head out of your ass on this issue.
This site has been infinitely disappointing.
Edited by Mike Tishman on 16 September 2005 at 8:03am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John W Leys
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 29 April 2004
Posts: 1143
|
| Posted: 16 September 2005 at 8:03am | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
Please everything may not be accurate on wikipedia but they are ready to correct what his wrong.
And I still fail to see how wikipedia is at all useful as a reference
tool if there is no way to tell if the information you're looking at is
accurate or not.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
James C. Taylor
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4705
|
| Posted: 16 September 2005 at 8:09am | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
Mike Tishman wrote:
| Bullshit. You're the one who brought it to that level. |
|
|
Mike Tishman earlier wrote:
| Both of those examples only have meaning in terms of other symbols, and as such are embedded in matrices of discourse which have inherent biases. |
|
|
Yeah. I did that. Right.
Mike Tishman wrote:
| You must have recovered [from being the smartest guy in the room] very well indeed. I would never have guessed you were once the smartest guy in any room. Thanks for the advice though, condescending, insulting, and point-dodging though it was. |
|
|
It was quite on point. Rather than concede you spouted idiocy ("all information is biased"), you have decided to play verbal gymnastics in the hopes it would either obfuscate or intimidate. Having failed at either, you're now trying the "declare victory and retreat strategy" which is also doomed to fail. Face it; as we used to say on 21st Street "You're wrong."
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Jason Fulton
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 3938
|
| Posted: 16 September 2005 at 8:09am | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
If they're ready to correct what is wrong, then why give someone the run-around concerning a false entry about themselves?
It just seems like a new way for the trolls to 'stick it' to JB.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Topic Closed)
