Systematic bias - Revision history

Jukeboksi: External links: w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias

2004-10-12T10:57:41Z

External links: w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:57, 12 October 2004
Line 26:		Line 26:

	Such delusions are rarely rewarded, as a [[systemic bias]] based on identity usually outweighs any amount of effort to impose a favourable systematic bias. That is, no matter how much someone might work to favour "ruling class" or "Aryan" or "white" interests, in the end, if they are not themselves clearly members of this class, the imposition of this power structure will simply not favour them. In the pathetic case of [[sysop power structure]] one finds, for instance, females readily engaged in enforcing the edicts of males, thinking this makes them part of a "club". In reality, they are usually/often mocked as dupes by those whose orders they follow, especially if they apply a bias against exactly the measures intended to enable them, e.g. [[w:feminism]].		Such delusions are rarely rewarded, as a [[systemic bias]] based on identity usually outweighs any amount of effort to impose a favourable systematic bias. That is, no matter how much someone might work to favour "ruling class" or "Aryan" or "white" interests, in the end, if they are not themselves clearly members of this class, the imposition of this power structure will simply not favour them. In the pathetic case of [[sysop power structure]] one finds, for instance, females readily engaged in enforcing the edicts of males, thinking this makes them part of a "club". In reality, they are usually/often mocked as dupes by those whose orders they follow, especially if they apply a bias against exactly the measures intended to enable them, e.g. [[w:feminism]].

			'''External links:'''
			*[[w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias]]

142.177.103.52: due process = court = high overhead, when's it worth it? when sysops are involved

2003-12-25T20:51:10Z

due process = court = high overhead, when's it worth it? when sysops are involved

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:51, 25 December 2003
Line 1:		Line 1:
	A '''systematic bias''' is a bias arising from ''how'' participants in some joint process work together. It is related to, and may arise in part from, a [[systemic bias]]. However, one deals with the two in quite different ways - while a systemic bias can often be dealt with simply by disrupting the cliques and inviting in new participants, a systematic bias can only be addressed by what is known in legal terms as "[[due process]]" - a dragging-out and delaying of decisions so that persistent factual claims can be evaluated, and decisions are not made until a deliberation has occurred on the credibility of each one.		A '''systematic bias''' is a bias arising from ''how'' participants in some joint process work together. It is related to, and may arise in part from, a [[systemic bias]]. However, one deals with the two in quite different ways - while a systemic bias can often be dealt with simply by disrupting the cliques and inviting in new participants and raising awareness, a '''systematic''' bias can ''only'' be addressed by what is known in legal terms as "[[due process]]" - a dragging-out and delaying of decisions so that persistent factual claims can be evaluated, and decisions are not made until a deliberation has occurred on the credibility of each one. This may involve [[factionalism]] to a degree and an [[w:adversarial process]] in which each [[faction]] gets to assert its truth, and where these compete to define reality, but with other factors (such as who holds the actual technological and killing power) equalized. This is of course the function of a courtroom where the term "due process" emerged/applied.

	For ordinary distinctions such as, e.g. "[[simple vandalism]]" on a [[large public wiki]], such a process may be overkill. However, for deep distinctions that involve the [[sysop power structure]], such as [[sysop vandalism]], there is going to be a "due process" or nothing, since, the sysops themselves have the technological power to prevent their own activities from being investigated.		For ordinary distinctions such as, e.g. "[[simple vandalism]]" on a [[large public wiki]], such due process may be overkill. However, for deep distinctions that involve the [[sysop power structure]], such as [[sysop vandalism]], there is going to be a "due process" or nothing, since, the sysops themselves have the technological power to prevent their own activities from being investigated.

	=== consequences of systematic bias ===		=== consequences of systematic bias ===

142.177.103.52: what the REAL problem is: lack of process enables liars and libellers, drives off those who care about truth; some solutions

2003-12-25T20:47:31Z

what the REAL problem is: lack of process enables liars and libellers, drives off those who care about truth; some solutions

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:47, 25 December 2003
Line 3:		Line 3:
	For ordinary distinctions such as, e.g. "[[simple vandalism]]" on a [[large public wiki]], such a process may be overkill. However, for deep distinctions that involve the [[sysop power structure]], such as [[sysop vandalism]], there is going to be a "due process" or nothing, since, the sysops themselves have the technological power to prevent their own activities from being investigated.		For ordinary distinctions such as, e.g. "[[simple vandalism]]" on a [[large public wiki]], such a process may be overkill. However, for deep distinctions that involve the [[sysop power structure]], such as [[sysop vandalism]], there is going to be a "due process" or nothing, since, the sysops themselves have the technological power to prevent their own activities from being investigated.

	~~The concept~~ of the [[w:carceral state]] may be relevant: This was [[Michel Foucault]]'s generalization of Jeremy Bentham's "Panopticon" or prison-like society where authority could see and control everything, but its own secret investigations and deliberations were entirely invisible to those it controlled.		=== consequences of systematic bias ===

	[[Groupthink]] and the [[echo chamber]] are the natural result of an unaddressed systematic bias. While a group may have a [[systemic bias]] to accepting the outputs of such phenomena as "real", it takes a lack of process for them to accept those outputs as being viable [[consensus decision-making]]. Thus only a disciplined notion of such decision making can alleviate the systematic bias.		The concept of the [[w:carceral state]] may be relevant: This was [[Michel Foucault]]'s generalization of Jeremy Bentham's "Panopticon" or prison-like society where authority could see and control everything, but its own secret investigations and deliberations were entirely invisible to those it controlled. In this world, there is a systematic bias that makes police acts non-transparent, and public acts transparent, thus the police/public distinction determines every other distinction anyone in society can make. This is mirrored pathethically by [[sysop power structure]] in most [[wiki code]] and on every [[large public wiki]] so far - it's probably inevitable.

			[[Groupthink]] and the [[echo chamber]] are the natural result of an unaddressed systematic bias. While a group may have a [[systemic bias]] to accepting the outputs of such phenomena as "real", it takes a lack of process and an abdication of publishers' responsibility (see [[libel pit]]) for them to accept those outputs as being viable [[consensus decision-making]]. Thus only a disciplined notion of such decision making can alleviate the systematic bias.

			=== some solutions ===

	This is such a serious problem that some very respected thinkers have concluded that only a separation of [[w:epistemic community]] by [[value system]] can be effective in creating "objective" categories. The most famous examples being the burning of "pagan" texts by Christians, the development by Marxists and some syndicalists of a "working class" specific education system, various social and alternate histories from feminism, and recently and less famously the [[w:Islamization of knowledge]] proposed by the Palestinian Ismail al-Faruqi. In all these cases, people sharing a value system would be expected to share ethical principles as well, and those would guide their categorizations - this seems obvious for ethics and law, but is it also true for ''all'' facts?		This is such a serious problem that some very respected thinkers have concluded that only a separation of [[w:epistemic community]] by [[value system]] can be effective in creating "objective" categories. The most famous examples being the burning of "pagan" texts by Christians, the development by Marxists and some syndicalists of a "working class" specific education system, various social and alternate histories from feminism, and recently and less famously the [[w:Islamization of knowledge]] proposed by the Palestinian Ismail al-Faruqi. In all these cases, people sharing a value system would be expected to share ethical principles as well, and those would guide their categorizations - this seems obvious for ethics and law, but is it also true for ''all'' facts?

	There are over one thousand librarian-created categorization schemes in the largest collections of these. This suggests strongly that there is no single hierarchy of classification of knowledge, and that each means of agreeing on a single hierarchy is probably itself evidence of yet another systematic bias.		There are over one thousand librarian-created categorization schemes in the largest collections of these. This suggests strongly that there is no single hierarchy of classification of knowledge, and that each means of agreeing on a single hierarchy is probably itself evidence of yet another systematic bias.

			=== "good" biases? ===

			It remains however possible to have a ''good'' systematic bias, if one has a [[value system]]. That is, one can evaluate [[w:goodness\|goodness]] without much controversy from within a culture, and determine for each proposed change (or "edit" in the case of a [[wiki]]) whether it is making the overall body of law/thought/knowledge "better" or "worse".

			This is the function of [[faction]]s - a degree of [[factionalism]] is far preferable to cliques and authoritarianism, at least, this is the choice that has actually been made in [[developed nation]]s, which evolve towards multi-party democracy, and away from [[GodKing]] rule.

			=== "authorship" as a systematic bias ===

			To evaluate edit quality based on so-called [[authorship]] subverts critical evaluation and the function of factions - such subversion is the purpose of the [[Wikipedia Liars Club]] and other bureaucracies and cliques that are devoted to negating value systems as such, and simply promoting the [[power structure]] that has favoured them so far. This is not surprising: some Jews even joined the German Nazi Party in the 1930s, believing it would exempt them from persecution.

			Such delusions are rarely rewarded, as a [[systemic bias]] based on identity usually outweighs any amount of effort to impose a favourable systematic bias. That is, no matter how much someone might work to favour "ruling class" or "Aryan" or "white" interests, in the end, if they are not themselves clearly members of this class, the imposition of this power structure will simply not favour them. In the pathetic case of [[sysop power structure]] one finds, for instance, females readily engaged in enforcing the edicts of males, thinking this makes them part of a "club". In reality, they are usually/often mocked as dupes by those whose orders they follow, especially if they apply a bias against exactly the measures intended to enable them, e.g. [[w:feminism]].

142.177.103.52: what it is, why it's not systemic bias, how it's been addressed

2003-12-25T20:36:45Z

what it is, why it's not systemic bias, how it's been addressed

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:36, 25 December 2003
Line 6:		Line 6:

	[[Groupthink]] and the [[echo chamber]] are the natural result of an unaddressed systematic bias. While a group may have a [[systemic bias]] to accepting the outputs of such phenomena as "real", it takes a lack of process for them to accept those outputs as being viable [[consensus decision-making]]. Thus only a disciplined notion of such decision making can alleviate the systematic bias.		[[Groupthink]] and the [[echo chamber]] are the natural result of an unaddressed systematic bias. While a group may have a [[systemic bias]] to accepting the outputs of such phenomena as "real", it takes a lack of process for them to accept those outputs as being viable [[consensus decision-making]]. Thus only a disciplined notion of such decision making can alleviate the systematic bias.

			This is such a serious problem that some very respected thinkers have concluded that only a separation of [[w:epistemic community]] by [[value system]] can be effective in creating "objective" categories. The most famous examples being the burning of "pagan" texts by Christians, the development by Marxists and some syndicalists of a "working class" specific education system, various social and alternate histories from feminism, and recently and less famously the [[w:Islamization of knowledge]] proposed by the Palestinian Ismail al-Faruqi. In all these cases, people sharing a value system would be expected to share ethical principles as well, and those would guide their categorizations - this seems obvious for ethics and law, but is it also true for ''all'' facts?

			There are over one thousand librarian-created categorization schemes in the largest collections of these. This suggests strongly that there is no single hierarchy of classification of knowledge, and that each means of agreeing on a single hierarchy is probably itself evidence of yet another systematic bias.

142.177.103.52: what it is, what it gives rise to

2003-12-25T20:31:21Z

what it is, what it gives rise to

New page

A '''systematic bias''' is a bias arising from ''how'' participants in some joint process work together. It is related to, and may arise in part from, a [[systemic bias]]. However, one deals with the two in quite different ways - while a systemic bias can often be dealt with simply by disrupting the cliques and inviting in new participants, a systematic bias can only be addressed by what is known in legal terms as "[[due process]]" - a dragging-out and delaying of decisions so that persistent factual claims can be evaluated, and decisions are not made until a deliberation has occurred on the credibility of each one.

For ordinary distinctions such as, e.g. "[[simple vandalism]]" on a [[large public wiki]], such a process may be overkill. However, for deep distinctions that involve the [[sysop power structure]], such as [[sysop vandalism]], there is going to be a "due process" or nothing, since, the sysops themselves have the technological power to prevent their own activities from being investigated.

The concept of the [[w:carceral state]] may be relevant: This was [[Michel Foucault]]'s generalization of Jeremy Bentham's "Panopticon" or prison-like society where authority could see and control everything, but its own secret investigations and deliberations were entirely invisible to those it controlled.

[[Groupthink]] and the [[echo chamber]] are the natural result of an unaddressed systematic bias. While a group may have a [[systemic bias]] to accepting the outputs of such phenomena as "real", it takes a lack of process for them to accept those outputs as being viable [[consensus decision-making]]. Thus only a disciplined notion of such decision making can alleviate the systematic bias.