4 ms·
I think you are right in your critique, but you cannot then draw your own conclusions without providing some data that at least partially supports it. Yes, we
by zibzab 5y ago
I think you are right in your critique, but you cannot then draw your own conclusions without providing some data that at least partially supports it.
Yes, we need to have a ground truth with regard to violence committed. But that data is already published elsewhere
https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-208380/ https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-208380/
- raxxorrax 5y agoPutting numbers on the suffering is important work, but I don't like the conclusion that are drawn from it. They are mostly invalid. If Israel attacks Palestine and kills a citizen, Palestine retaliates and kills 5 in return. Should they have stopped after killing just one person? It that a non-biased approach? What is the ethical approach? Kill just one? Kill nobody? Kill as much as you can? Doesn't allow for conclusions about bias either, especially not in an armed conflict.
- zibzab 5y agoI'm not making a political statement, I'm looking at this as a data science problem
- prepend 5y agoI don’t think your linked ground truth is useful if the author wanted to try to establish reality or a “non-biased” baseline. I don’t see any attempt in the paper to try to do this or to use your source, or others. The number of fatalities would be hard, I think, to try to show what the violent wording would be used since it quantifies deaths (eg, 200 deaths in a single incident would be reported different than 200 events with one death each). But perhaps trying to determine a correlation of reporting to deaths, or reporting to events. Or any attempt. The biggest problem I have with the paper is that there’s no null hypothesis to disprove, so it “proves bias” without establishing or even estimating what a non-biased corpus looks like.