3 ms·
What is listed in the post you link are exerpts of the email conversation, selected by Yngve Hoiseth. The link I mention is broken should lead to the entire, un
by a_throwaway_6 6y ago
What is listed in the post you link are exerpts of the email conversation,
selected by Yngve Hoiseth. The link I mention is broken should lead to the
entire, unredacted, unexcerpted email conversation, but fails to do so. This
makes it impossible to determine to what extent Yngve Hoiseth edited the email
exchange to force his interpretation of the exchange on a reader.
Your post and Yngve Hoiseth's post claim that the email exchange presented in
Yngve Hoiseth's post is an "official response" from UC Berkeley. To determine
the veracity of this claim it is necessary to know who was contacted, in UC Berkeley.
The name of the person (as in first name and family name/s) is not necessary
for this, but it is necessary to name their office. For example "dean of
such-and-such" or "director of so-and-so". That this information is not provided
makes the claim of an "official response" impossible to verify. For example,
nobody can contact the person Yngve Hoiseth claims they have contacted, or the
person currently holding the same office, and ask them to verify that they or
their office have, indeed, been contacted by Yngve Hoiseth.
That, together with the absence of the entire conversation makes it impossible
to know whether Yngve Hoiseth really did have this email exchange, to what
extent they presented it fairly and to what extent what was said by the other
person was edited.
The person Yngve Hoiseth claims to have contacted allegedly said the following:
My understanding is that my university email communication is a matter of
public record, and I try always to communicate with that standard in mind.
There is no prohibition that I know of against publication of my emails with
you, in other words. I would just ask that you contextualize my communications
in a transparent and accurate way.
This is absolutely not what was done in Yngve Hoiseth's post and your linking to
it claiming it is an "official response" to your post.
Assuming the exchange was real, it seems that the person at the other end
didn't ask for their identity to be withheld for any reason. It sounds as if
they fully expected for their identity to be made public instead. There seems to
be no reason why Yngve Hoiseth's post ommits this detail.
Given all the above your post and Yngve Hoiseth's post are misleading and suggest an
effort to misrepresent at the very least UC Berkeley's position.
- hntrader 6y ago"suggest an effort to misrepresent at the very least UC Berkeley's position." This is a non-sequitur. The decision to keep the identity of the contact anonymous and the presence of a dead link (when a slightly redacted version of the full conversation is still available) doesn't automatically suggest that they're trying to misrepresent UC Berkeley. What an unjustified stretch.
- a_throwaway_6 6y agoYou don't see any problem with someone selectively quoting from what they claim is "UC Berkeley's official position", while not pointing to an actual source of that "official position" in UC Berkeley itself, or the entire conversation? How are we to know that Yngve Hoiseth did not make up the entire conversation, or that they didn't simply choose the passages of the email exchange that support their view, only? If this is an "official" exchange, why the lack of transparency? The lack of transparency "suggests an effort to misrpresent".
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- hntrader 5y agoIt ideally should've been made clear that the veracity is unconfirmed, but aren't there more charitable interpretations for why it wasn't?
- a_throwaway_6 5y agoI could perhaps see a charitable interpretation if the author of the blog post (Guzey) did not accuse the author of the book (Walker) of "deliberate data manipulation", gave the opportunity to the target of the accusation to explain himself, did not misrepresent himself as a "researcher" (pointing to his blog posts as examples of his "research"), did not link to a friend's blog post for "UC Berkeley’s official response", etc, etc. The author of the blog post is not leaving a lot of room for charitable interpretations. But in any case, what charitable interpretation do you propose?