Journal perfessor multigeek's Journal: Why I Seem To Have Split My Brain In Two 7
For any of you who haven't made the connection yet, yes, the recent entries on my database system are the same topic as my recent political entries.
Think about it. We are slashdotters and we, at least most of us, strive towards attaining conclusions built from analysis.
"Do as I say because I said so" let alone "Think as I think because I said so" should be anathema to all of us.
Now, I grew up on political debate. And my ex-drill sergeant stepfather and my ex-Los Alamos father each made very sure, very early that I had given plenty of thought to the politics of warfare. And on that and many other issues I have since discovered that political dialogue founders on three things:
- Disagreements about language
- Disagreements about data
- Willful clouding of the issue(s) by one or both sides.
Language we'll get back to another time.
Suffice for now to say that this is the heart of my rage against Twirlip. Word definitions shape any debate and when somebody consistantly claims that he and only he gets to redefine words to mean whatever he wants (especially when he is so flagrant as to state that any other source, including dictionaries, pale before his sole opinion) then that person is hiding something. Honorable people do not seek to confuse the people around them.
Willful clouding of the issues touches upon the point above as well as upon my earlier JE on debate techniques but it too will have to wait for another time for a full airing.
But the middle point is one that we can address. It is one that I have been working to address for most of a decade. Watch the debates around here. When things get serious it usually gets down to facts. "[blah] OS has [foo] market share." "Every day of combat costs [X] dollars." "[this site] shows that [politician] has contradicted himself."
And at that point it all degrades down to a debate about the credibility of sources.
Well, at that point most /.ers are lost. They simply don't have the time to
a.) examine overall coverage by that source
b.) determine ownership and/or funding
c.) discover the backgrounds of the authors and editors
d.) find out what else this source has created
and
e.) create a common ground where these things and other relevant data can be reviewed, discussed, and rated. Preferably in a transparent system which is itself subject to the guidelines above.
Well, I have taken the time. And I've built such a system.
It is a combination of an imDB.com for media sources, a category and ownership searching/tracking means, and the core of a potential rating and public analysis system.
In other words, if I can get this fucker out the door, then instead of debate ending once the, say, FoxNews vs. Indymedia point is reached, both sides can have common access to an imDB-type URL that provides objective, structured data on all of this.
Since I've also built a biographical database system built to be interwoven with the ones I've discussed already, authors can also be viewed through a shared protocol that enables the user to determine: what else has this person done? Who have they worked for?, etc.
Since I've built an organization database system, it is possible to reach a point where querying about a site tells you who owns it. You then query who owns them. Then you can check to see what else they own, who runs them (more bio entries), company history, the works.
This database system is my response to too many years of watching debates build, grow, and then abort as the mutually exclusive "facts" leave both sides stranded.
I have spoken loud and clear here and elsewhere about public disclosure. I have been emphatically pointed about the questionable credibility of those who hide sources, means of analysis, or grounds for authority.
Well, this is me putting my money where my mouth is. Here it is, prebuilt and tested. Templates, entries, keywords, fields. A workable system. Today.
If I can find the time and the scratch, I'm gonna host the whole damned thing and enable public addition of entries.
And that is why my database JEs are political JEs
Rustin
Think about it. We are slashdotters and we, at least most of us, strive towards attaining conclusions built from analysis.
"Do as I say because I said so" let alone "Think as I think because I said so" should be anathema to all of us.
Now, I grew up on political debate. And my ex-drill sergeant stepfather and my ex-Los Alamos father each made very sure, very early that I had given plenty of thought to the politics of warfare. And on that and many other issues I have since discovered that political dialogue founders on three things:
- Disagreements about language
- Disagreements about data
- Willful clouding of the issue(s) by one or both sides.
Language we'll get back to another time.
Suffice for now to say that this is the heart of my rage against Twirlip. Word definitions shape any debate and when somebody consistantly claims that he and only he gets to redefine words to mean whatever he wants (especially when he is so flagrant as to state that any other source, including dictionaries, pale before his sole opinion) then that person is hiding something. Honorable people do not seek to confuse the people around them.
Willful clouding of the issues touches upon the point above as well as upon my earlier JE on debate techniques but it too will have to wait for another time for a full airing.
But the middle point is one that we can address. It is one that I have been working to address for most of a decade. Watch the debates around here. When things get serious it usually gets down to facts. "[blah] OS has [foo] market share." "Every day of combat costs [X] dollars." "[this site] shows that [politician] has contradicted himself."
And at that point it all degrades down to a debate about the credibility of sources.
Well, at that point most
a.) examine overall coverage by that source
b.) determine ownership and/or funding
c.) discover the backgrounds of the authors and editors
d.) find out what else this source has created
and
e.) create a common ground where these things and other relevant data can be reviewed, discussed, and rated. Preferably in a transparent system which is itself subject to the guidelines above.
Well, I have taken the time. And I've built such a system.
It is a combination of an imDB.com for media sources, a category and ownership searching/tracking means, and the core of a potential rating and public analysis system.
In other words, if I can get this fucker out the door, then instead of debate ending once the, say, FoxNews vs. Indymedia point is reached, both sides can have common access to an imDB-type URL that provides objective, structured data on all of this.
Since I've also built a biographical database system built to be interwoven with the ones I've discussed already, authors can also be viewed through a shared protocol that enables the user to determine: what else has this person done? Who have they worked for?, etc.
Since I've built an organization database system, it is possible to reach a point where querying about a site tells you who owns it. You then query who owns them. Then you can check to see what else they own, who runs them (more bio entries), company history, the works.
This database system is my response to too many years of watching debates build, grow, and then abort as the mutually exclusive "facts" leave both sides stranded.
I have spoken loud and clear here and elsewhere about public disclosure. I have been emphatically pointed about the questionable credibility of those who hide sources, means of analysis, or grounds for authority.
Well, this is me putting my money where my mouth is. Here it is, prebuilt and tested. Templates, entries, keywords, fields. A workable system. Today.
If I can find the time and the scratch, I'm gonna host the whole damned thing and enable public addition of entries.
And that is why my database JEs are political JEs
Rustin
Two points. (Score:2)
I await the JE announcing it.
Also, as to language--don't forget the use of jargon. Organizations, especially the military and government, tend to forment sub-dialects specific to what they deal with on a day to day basis. When a govermental head says "(blah", which literally can mean a lot of things but jargonically means something very specific, a valid point in a debate about what the g
Language differences (Score:2)
Yes. You have a very good point. I've long felt that serious debate on any issue should assume that at least twenty percent of the time will be expended on determining common givens and definitions.
Hypertext in general was supposed to help with this, and it has. But not as much as was supposed.
Back in the bad old days of Hypercard (I have the poster for the original release on my wall behind me at this moment) we used to assume that by no
I'm sold. (Score:2)
actually, wait until I have time to digest your previous JEs, get some ground work questions out of the way, and then I'm with it.
I've spent way too much time trying to research supporting facts from odd resources when I get into knock-down drag-out debates on slashdot (like the time I tried to debate that lawyers don't necessarily make tons and tons of money. Boy, that was the hardest thing I've ever done and I'm not sure I did very good job)
infact, I'll take two.
Re:I'm sold. (Score:2)
Drop me a line at my dataomnivore@earthlink.net address and I get a copy on the way.
Enjoy,
Rustin
Lame argument tactics (Score:1)
Use of analogies for perfectly understandable things, often with appeals to emotion where the actual topic is somewhat dry and remote.
A post on same [slashdot.org]
Frequently the argument is reduced to the merits of the analogy, often with people throwing in extra points or role-reversals to try to improve upon the analogy, and the discussion falls apart.
I don't really make the distinction between good and analogies and bad. They're all bad, unless used for humorous purp
Right on (Score:2)
Other database ideas:
- Search for a CD or song and find out if proceeds fund the RIAA
- Grade politicians on how many promises they have kept, the likelihood of surpise policies, and size of campaign funds
- Patent litigation and its benefits to innovation
- H1B and offshore hiring and unemployment
- Free market vs regulation (Energy, polluti
Where to go from here (Score:2)
That's the idea.
Search for a CD or song and find out if proceeds fund the RIAA
Well, if and when I link the bio, sourcematter, works, and organization dbases, that should work. The pieces are all there.
Grade politicians on how many promises they have kept, the likelihood of surpise policies, and size of campaign funds
A lot of peopl