AKAImBatman's Journal: Interesting Misconception

Today's lesson on taking things out of context. Here's a post I made today:

How is Science any different from groupthink? Scientists are no where near as impartial as they claim to be. The only checks and balances in place are reviews by scientific peers!

Think about it.

Shocked yet? Frightened at how I could possibly say such a thing? Clamoring for the mods to continue my fall to oblivion? I even got this response from an AC:

You're usually more level headed than this. I think you're just being silly.

Interesting thing, though. No one read the context. Here's the post I was replying to:

How are they different from groupthink? or the political bias at times that persists in Wikipedia?

Their top level admins are no where near as impartial as they claim to be. Obvious subjects to avoid on Wikipedia are those which are based on religious, political, or environmental, concerns. People have taken "maintaining" those types of entries to ridiculous levels that whole pages of discussion exist behind the page where the various factions bitch at each other. The best way to see the bias is to watch what they require to have accredited links and what they do not, let alone what sites they consider credible sources for disputed information.

While it has much useful information there are just certain subjects to avoid

Now let's re-read my text in context:

How are they different from groupthink? or the political bias at times that persists in Wikipedia?

Their top level admins are no where near as impartial as they claim to be.

How is Science any different from groupthink? Scientists are no where near as impartial as they claim to be. The only checks and balances in place are reviews by scientific peers!

See it? Still want my head on a platter?

An interesting experience.

Hmmm

[Captain Splendid]

Still want my head on a platter?

How much you want for it?

<sarcasm>?

[BobPaul]

Sarcasm can be a tough sell, but it's impossible when people don't read the entire thread. Sometimes you need to be blunt and use <sarcasm> tags.

Re:?

[AKAImBatman]

Actually, I should have quoted the relevant section of the parent post. (Something which I usually do as habit.) It's just interesting that the one time I didn't quote, I got bit so hard. I wonder if it has anything to do with the new comment system, or if Slashdot is simply getting to busy for people to pay attention to context? Hmm...

Re:?

[jdray]

Where's the sarcasm? I think he's right. "Groupthink" is a term to describe the situation when people get together and agree to a set of ideas on "the way things are" based on a few data points and a healthy dose of extrapolation. Wait, no, that's science. "Groupthink" is... oh, right.