Systemic bias - Revision history

142.177.99.91: note: declaration of bias can reduce systemic bias over time

2004-08-17T17:34:31Z

note: declaration of bias can reduce systemic bias over time

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:34, 17 August 2004
Line 6:		Line 6:

	Likewise, we would not believe in "neutral points of view" or "assume good will" unless we thought we could overcome our innate biases to work together. Trying to codify the so-called [[community point of view]] is an attempt to at least define the systemic bias of those who participate. It is almost always resisted by those who gain power via this bias alone, e.g. the [[Wikipedia Liars Club]]. If you look for [[m:community point of view]], you will not find it, as the liars are engaged in deleting it, to make sure no one realizes they ARE in fact pushing a [[point of view]] - which would require in the [[neutral point of view]] ideal that it be neutralized by engagement with some opposition, e.g. "[[trolls]]".		Likewise, we would not believe in "neutral points of view" or "assume good will" unless we thought we could overcome our innate biases to work together. Trying to codify the so-called [[community point of view]] is an attempt to at least define the systemic bias of those who participate. It is almost always resisted by those who gain power via this bias alone, e.g. the [[Wikipedia Liars Club]]. If you look for [[m:community point of view]], you will not find it, as the liars are engaged in deleting it, to make sure no one realizes they ARE in fact pushing a [[point of view]] - which would require in the [[neutral point of view]] ideal that it be neutralized by engagement with some opposition, e.g. "[[trolls]]".

			Some believe that a [[declaration of bias]] helps reduce '''systemic bias''' by making it visible. [[Faction]]s are an example of this kind of declaration.

142.177.78.135: more poignant examples

2004-01-02T08:43:05Z

more poignant examples

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:43, 2 January 2004
Line 1:		Line 1:
	A '''systemic bias''' is the shared beliefs of those who participate. For instance, in a project run and used mostly by Americans, there will be a systemic bias towards [[w:American Exceptionalism]] and [[w:scientism]]. In a project run and used mostly by Internet users (like any [[large public wiki]]) there will be a systemic bias towards technological solutions as being "good".		A '''systemic bias''' is the shared beliefs of those who participate. For instance, in a project run and used mostly by Americans, there will be a systemic bias towards [[w:American Exceptionalism]] and [[w:scientism]]. In a project run and used mostly by Internet users (like any [[large public wiki]]) there will be a systemic bias towards technological solutions as being "good".

	~~This is different from a [[systematic bias]] which arises not from ''who'' participates, but from ''how'' they work together~~. ~~This is not~~ the same ~~thing~~.		Edward Wenk Jr. for instance claims that the Bush Administration "lacks tolerance for healthy dissent. The most influential advisers have the same biases as the president, nurturing error, blunder and folly." [http://truthout.org/docs_03/010204D.shtml]

	~~The~~ so-called [[community point of view]] is an attempt to at least define the systemic bias of those who participate. It is almost always resisted by those who gain power via this bias alone, e.g. the [[Wikipedia Liars Club]]. If you look for [[m:community point of view]], you will not find it, as the liars are engaged in deleting it, to make sure no one realizes they ARE in fact pushing a [[point of view]] - which would require in the [[neutral point of view]] ideal that it be neutralized by engagement with some opposition, e.g. "[[trolls]]".		This is different from a [[systematic bias]] which arises not from ''who'' participates, but from ''how'' they work together. Such a bias would be for example voting "machines... highly vulnerable to fraud... concentration of media... the imperative to raise funds for TV ads" and the fact that "the military-industrial-congressional complex controls half the national budget and subverts priorities preferred by the electorate." Obviously these are quite closely related to the systemic bias, but, in theory, they can be differentiated. If we did not believe that, then, we could not believe that a democracy could function while still leaving such obvious power groups in place.

			Likewise, we would not believe in "neutral points of view" or "assume good will" unless we thought we could overcome our innate biases to work together. Trying to codify the so-called [[community point of view]] is an attempt to at least define the systemic bias of those who participate. It is almost always resisted by those who gain power via this bias alone, e.g. the [[Wikipedia Liars Club]]. If you look for [[m:community point of view]], you will not find it, as the liars are engaged in deleting it, to make sure no one realizes they ARE in fact pushing a [[point of view]] - which would require in the [[neutral point of view]] ideal that it be neutralized by engagement with some opposition, e.g. "[[trolls]]".

142.177.103.52: what it is, what it isn't

2003-12-25T20:25:04Z

what it is, what it isn't

New page

A '''systemic bias''' is the shared beliefs of those who participate. For instance, in a project run and used mostly by Americans, there will be a systemic bias towards [[w:American Exceptionalism]] and [[w:scientism]]. In a project run and used mostly by Internet users (like any [[large public wiki]]) there will be a systemic bias towards technological solutions as being "good".

This is different from a [[systematic bias]] which arises not from ''who'' participates, but from ''how'' they work together. This is not the same thing.

The so-called [[community point of view]] is an attempt to at least define the systemic bias of those who participate. It is almost always resisted by those who gain power via this bias alone, e.g. the [[Wikipedia Liars Club]]. If you look for [[m:community point of view]], you will not find it, as the liars are engaged in deleting it, to make sure no one realizes they ARE in fact pushing a [[point of view]] - which would require in the [[neutral point of view]] ideal that it be neutralized by engagement with some opposition, e.g. "[[trolls]]".