DeletedUser
A very simple example of bias being present, without any distortion of facts: Biographical entries in an encyclopaedia, especially older ones, are predominantly about white men.
DeletedUser
DWEMs
Dead
White
European
Males
I might also add that they're mostly Christian men unless you go back before it was an option.
DeletedUser
I think I phrased myself badly. I meant "reliable encyclopedias". You can look at an old edition of the Britannica, or go on Conservapedia, and they will be biased - but they are not like most encyclopedias.
An old edition of the Britannica is, obviously, old - and therefore is outdated and misinformed because we did not know as much in the past.
And Conservapedia is not a real encyclopedia. It was founded for the sole purpose of being biased, so it's hardly an educational resource.
As for DWEMs, I don't think that many encyclopedias are still biased that way. No real informational material would ignore so much information (ie: everyone who isn't a DWEM).
And moreover, what's wrong with being a DWEM? One day I will be one myself, and I'm certainly not an evil conservative.
An old edition of the Britannica is, obviously, old - and therefore is outdated and misinformed because we did not know as much in the past.
And Conservapedia is not a real encyclopedia. It was founded for the sole purpose of being biased, so it's hardly an educational resource.
As for DWEMs, I don't think that many encyclopedias are still biased that way. No real informational material would ignore so much information (ie: everyone who isn't a DWEM).
And moreover, what's wrong with being a DWEM? One day I will be one myself, and I'm certainly not an evil conservative.
DeletedUser
Nothing is wrong with it. I was in no way being critical. But even in newer versions, where efforts are made to include more women (again, just as an example) you can actually see another bias at work, with criteria for significance stretched for the inclusion of women. Women's history does not have the documented weight of DWEM and it is actively searched for and re-created from the ashes so to speak. The bias is deliberate and purposeful, but bias nonetheless.
Or another simple example. I used to work on the Australian literature section of Wikipedia. More than once, someone removed an article about a particular contemporary author because of lack of significance. From a global perspective, the significance is negligible, yet from an Australian literary perspective the view is different. There is also a significant sci-fi/fantasy movement in Australian literature, which is (imo) is over-represented on Wiki. If I were editing a paper encyclopaedia on the subject, these works be relegated to an extended article on the genre, with only a couple of the major writers represented and few, if any, individual texts given their own article. I consider "literary" works to be of more cultural and historical significance, in spite of the larger popularity and reach of genre fiction. This doesn't make me wrong, but it is bias.
Or another simple example. I used to work on the Australian literature section of Wikipedia. More than once, someone removed an article about a particular contemporary author because of lack of significance. From a global perspective, the significance is negligible, yet from an Australian literary perspective the view is different. There is also a significant sci-fi/fantasy movement in Australian literature, which is (imo) is over-represented on Wiki. If I were editing a paper encyclopaedia on the subject, these works be relegated to an extended article on the genre, with only a couple of the major writers represented and few, if any, individual texts given their own article. I consider "literary" works to be of more cultural and historical significance, in spite of the larger popularity and reach of genre fiction. This doesn't make me wrong, but it is bias.
DeletedUser
Stephen King has sold many many more books than Thomas Pynchon. I would question the notability of Pynchon and merge him with "20th century American writers". [that's a joke...I read both among many others]
DeletedUser
Well.. My American lit knowledge is obviously ****e, because I hadn't even heard of Pynchon. But after a quick check... Is the significance of either author more or less because of sales, and more or less because of influence and specialised interest? And 50 years from now, who will be more well known? I would suggest that interest from special groups is more important for longevity and significance is created from that.
Another good example, in music: Nick Drake. Virtually no commercial success, but regularly cited as a major influence by artists until, more than 20 years after his death, he had albums in the charts and we regularly hear his work in film and television soundtracks.
It is an eternal war: Pop culture is rejected as ephemeral at the same time as "high" culture is rejected as elitist. Both sides have a point. But in the end (imo) it is the "musicians' musician" and the "writers' writer" that wins the race.
I think I've gone a bit off topic. Let's just say... It is the biases of "experts" that are used to create encyclopaedias.
Another good example, in music: Nick Drake. Virtually no commercial success, but regularly cited as a major influence by artists until, more than 20 years after his death, he had albums in the charts and we regularly hear his work in film and television soundtracks.
It is an eternal war: Pop culture is rejected as ephemeral at the same time as "high" culture is rejected as elitist. Both sides have a point. But in the end (imo) it is the "musicians' musician" and the "writers' writer" that wins the race.
I think I've gone a bit off topic. Let's just say... It is the biases of "experts" that are used to create encyclopaedias.
DeletedUser
I recommend The Crying of Lot 49 to start. It's his most accessible work as well as his shortest novel, but still his best IMO. Gravity's Rainbow is still excellent, but the title's a little bit too apropos, because it's heavy enough to have it's own gravitational field.
And to get back on the topic of the thread, I'll add that I don't believe reading is among George W. Bush's skills. I've gotten tired of taking potshots at him (and everyone else doing the same), but I'll add this one for old times sake.
DeletedUser
Thanks for the recommendations.
And yes, Bush is far too much of an easy target and thank goodness he's soon to be an ugly footnote in history.
And yes, Bush is far too much of an easy target and thank goodness he's soon to be an ugly footnote in history.
DeletedUser
I'll be sure to check out the first Presidential "Li-bary" in history since I'll have easy access to it.
DeletedUser
No, after you guys settle down and get high on Obama, you'll say that Bush was a good guy for keeping us safe.
DeletedUser
Yeah. Right.
And that is the amount of energy I'll bother to dignify your laughable statement with.
DeletedUser
Um, exactly what do you think that guy - who is virtually a certified idiot - did to keep you safe?
DeletedUser
He kept the poor, innocent, poverty-stricken Iraqi civilians from nuking America to death.
He also made sure that North Korea's "attacks" (which consisted of some people walking around in P'yongyang) didn't harm the American people
Finally, he looked like a rather cute monkey, and was therefore loved by brain-dead conservatives throughout the land.
He also made sure that North Korea's "attacks" (which consisted of some people walking around in P'yongyang) didn't harm the American people
Finally, he looked like a rather cute monkey, and was therefore loved by brain-dead conservatives throughout the land.
DeletedUser
Hmmm... Let's see...
We didn't have any more terrorist attacks after 9/11. I think that would qualify as keeping us safe.
We didn't have any more terrorist attacks after 9/11. I think that would qualify as keeping us safe.
DeletedUser
What's that talisman for?
It keeps the tigers away.
I've never seen a tiger around here!
Exactly!
DeletedUser
I think that pretty much sums up the best way to destroy your argument Justin.
DeletedUser
Keeping us safe would have meant he read and took seriously the August 6, 2001 memo titled Bin Laden Determined to Strike US. Instead going on vacation and finishing reading a book to a classroom of children while we were under attack was higher on his priority list. Vowing to get Bin Laden and then going after a country and dictator that had nothing to do with 9/11 did not keep us safe. It only made the extremists more vigilant in their agenda and helped AQ recruit. I do not feel safer. I feel deceived, disposable, and saddened by the blind eye turned prior to 9/11, the loss of life on 9/11 and the further loss of life in the name of 9/11.
DeletedUser
No. You didn't. However that was not even remotely because of Bush.
DeletedUser
No it isn't because, if you remember correctly, there were attempts to do terrorist acts and they were thwarted. :nowink:
DeletedUser
Read my last post.