4 ms·

If the height is wrong then it's not a fact. The parent was impying that multiple truths exist. Also prove your last statement that a significant amount of W

If the height is wrong then it's not a fact. The parent was impying that multiple truths exist. Also prove your last statement that a significant amount of Wikipedia editors are influenced by political

AmericanChopper 3y ago
It’s a controversial fact. You try figuring out for yourself how you’re going to prove what Kevin Durant’s height actually is, and report back to us. > prove your last statement that a significant amount of Wikipedia editors are influenced by political https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:4228b090-8900-4a29-baa3-660300cdd283/download_file?file_format=application%2Fpdf&safe_filename=Grisel_2023_Cancelling_disputes_how.pdf&type_of_work=Journal+article https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:4228b090-8900-4a29-baa3-66... > Based on empirical data drawn from a series of interviews and an exhaustive analysis of its cases between 2004 and 2020, this paper examines the ways in which the Arbitration Committee handles conduct-related disputes between editors, and the impact of social capital, summarily defined as the “capital captured through social relations” (Lin 2001, 19), on this process. My empirical material indicates that the Arbitration Committee not only examines the merits of the claims made by the disputants, but also and more crucially facilitates a social contest by considering the position of each disputant within the community of editors. Ultimately, the Arbitration Committee seeks to “cancel” these disputes in order to preserve Wikipedia’s social fabric. Here you go, there’s some empirical evidence that proves it. This describes a _political process_ where controversies are resolved according to the _politics_ of Wikipedia editing. I am not talking strictly about something like democrats vs republicans, or whatever your own narrow view of politics entails, as I suspect you may have presumed.
- themitigating 3y ago
  First addressing the height: It doesn't matter how hard it is to determine his height, if it's wrong on Wikipedia, or if it's controversial. If the height is incorrect on Wikipedia it's not true or a fact. If two sources have his height and they are different only one is true, which one? No idea but there aren't multiple truths. This line of thought is a way to muddy the difference between opinions and facts. A good opinion is one that is based on factual information, if you can claim there are multiple true but contradictory facts (like his height) it allows you have an opinion that might otherwise be based on nothing or false information. The difference between an opinion and a fact is an opinion can't be falsified[1]. It's possible to find out his height[2], therefore there is only one truth, and other "truths" would turn out to be false. ------- The paper you supplied shows social capital helps with the arbitration committee and talks about some inner circle of people who coordinate. You're right, this does prove your point and I did assume that you were talking about the more common current use of politics. I was too focused on the "facts" part of our discussion and read too quickly. That's my fault.
  - AmericanChopper 3y ago
    I don't think what you're talking about are facts. I think you're talking about Universal Truths, which don't exist in any real sense. A fact isn't something that can never be falsified. A fact is something that is widely believed to be, or proven to be true. Kevin Durant's NBA-listed height definitely meets one of those definitions already. As far as proof goes, a fact is only as true as the level of proof that you require it to meet. Given that all proofs can ultimately be falsified (at least all the ones we've seen so far)[0], the level of proof associated with any fact is going to be some arbitrary level that must exist below absolute proof. There are sophisticated institutions in our society that are devoted to evaluating facts, and none of them have a definition of a fact that is as rigid as yours. The criminal justice system is one, they only require proof "beyond reasonable doubt" (as subjectively decided by a jury or judge) to establish a fact. The academic system is another, and their standard for establishing a fact is arguably lower, as they rely on a (perhaps similar) peer evaluation process. It's not possible to have a fact with the characteristics you're describing. All facts can be subject to legitimate controversy. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma
    - themitigating 3y ago
      The criminal justice system relies on multiple facts to establish proof because an individual piece of evidence can be a fact but may not prove guilt by itself. Also remember that it's a jury's opinion that determines guilt, an opinion based on facts (we hope) I was implying "true fact" because I didn't know that it has a definition "a statement that can be proven true or false". An opinion can't be falsified right? So there's still a clear difference even though I wasn't using "fact" incorrectly.* Let me rewind to the statement I replied to ""promote their own views as the truth (for whatever reason they have for doing that), and suppress all opposing views." What I don't understand and you can help me with (I'm not being sarcastic at all) is that how can you push views (opinions) using truths (proven facts?) over another view without at least one of the following 1. False facts, fake sources, and other out of bounds actions 2. Omission of information Because I think I'm beginning to understand what you might be saying. Is it that someone would want to push a view by only adding facts that could cause someone to come to a conclusion but leaving out other information that might sway them to another conclusion? If that's true wouldn't that occur less often than other sources of information because those other sources of information are created once by a small set of authors? Books, blogs, news articles, etc. If so then isn't Wikipedia the best option? * I think I've gotten so used to saying "fact" to mean "proven fact" obviously if that was the case there would be no way to describe incorrect facts. I'm sorry, I do appreciate your patience. I have a habit of assuming other people know what I mean.

AmericanChopper 3y ago

It’s a controversial fact. You try figuring out for yourself how you’re going to prove what Kevin Durant’s height actually is, and report back to us. > prove your last statement that a significant amount of Wikipedia editors are influenced by political https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:4228b090-8900-4a29-baa3-660300cdd283/download_file?file_format=application%2Fpdf&safe_filename=Grisel_2023_Cancelling_disputes_how.pdf&type_of_work=Journal+article https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:4228b090-8900-4a29-baa3-66... > Based on empirical data drawn from a series of interviews and an exhaustive analysis of its cases between 2004 and 2020, this paper examines the ways in which the Arbitration Committee handles conduct-related disputes between editors, and the impact of social capital, summarily defined as the “capital captured through social relations” (Lin 2001, 19), on this process. My empirical material indicates that the Arbitration Committee not only examines the merits of the claims made by the disputants, but also and more crucially facilitates a social contest by considering the position of each disputant within the community of editors. Ultimately, the Arbitration Committee seeks to “cancel” these disputes in order to preserve Wikipedia’s social fabric. Here you go, there’s some empirical evidence that proves it. This describes a _political process_ where controversies are resolved according to the _politics_ of Wikipedia editing. I am not talking strictly about something like democrats vs republicans, or whatever your own narrow view of politics entails, as I suspect you may have presumed.

themitigating 3y ago
First addressing the height: It doesn't matter how hard it is to determine his height, if it's wrong on Wikipedia, or if it's controversial. If the height is incorrect on Wikipedia it's not true or a fact. If two sources have his height and they are different only one is true, which one? No idea but there aren't multiple truths. This line of thought is a way to muddy the difference between opinions and facts. A good opinion is one that is based on factual information, if you can claim there are multiple true but contradictory facts (like his height) it allows you have an opinion that might otherwise be based on nothing or false information. The difference between an opinion and a fact is an opinion can't be falsified[1]. It's possible to find out his height[2], therefore there is only one truth, and other "truths" would turn out to be false. ------- The paper you supplied shows social capital helps with the arbitration committee and talks about some inner circle of people who coordinate. You're right, this does prove your point and I did assume that you were talking about the more common current use of politics. I was too focused on the "facts" part of our discussion and read too quickly. That's my fault.
- AmericanChopper 3y ago
  I don't think what you're talking about are facts. I think you're talking about Universal Truths, which don't exist in any real sense. A fact isn't something that can never be falsified. A fact is something that is widely believed to be, or proven to be true. Kevin Durant's NBA-listed height definitely meets one of those definitions already. As far as proof goes, a fact is only as true as the level of proof that you require it to meet. Given that all proofs can ultimately be falsified (at least all the ones we've seen so far)[0], the level of proof associated with any fact is going to be some arbitrary level that must exist below absolute proof. There are sophisticated institutions in our society that are devoted to evaluating facts, and none of them have a definition of a fact that is as rigid as yours. The criminal justice system is one, they only require proof "beyond reasonable doubt" (as subjectively decided by a jury or judge) to establish a fact. The academic system is another, and their standard for establishing a fact is arguably lower, as they rely on a (perhaps similar) peer evaluation process. It's not possible to have a fact with the characteristics you're describing. All facts can be subject to legitimate controversy. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma
  - themitigating 3y ago
    The criminal justice system relies on multiple facts to establish proof because an individual piece of evidence can be a fact but may not prove guilt by itself. Also remember that it's a jury's opinion that determines guilt, an opinion based on facts (we hope) I was implying "true fact" because I didn't know that it has a definition "a statement that can be proven true or false". An opinion can't be falsified right? So there's still a clear difference even though I wasn't using "fact" incorrectly.* Let me rewind to the statement I replied to ""promote their own views as the truth (for whatever reason they have for doing that), and suppress all opposing views." What I don't understand and you can help me with (I'm not being sarcastic at all) is that how can you push views (opinions) using truths (proven facts?) over another view without at least one of the following 1. False facts, fake sources, and other out of bounds actions 2. Omission of information Because I think I'm beginning to understand what you might be saying. Is it that someone would want to push a view by only adding facts that could cause someone to come to a conclusion but leaving out other information that might sway them to another conclusion? If that's true wouldn't that occur less often than other sources of information because those other sources of information are created once by a small set of authors? Books, blogs, news articles, etc. If so then isn't Wikipedia the best option? * I think I've gotten so used to saying "fact" to mean "proven fact" obviously if that was the case there would be no way to describe incorrect facts. I'm sorry, I do appreciate your patience. I have a habit of assuming other people know what I mean.