Let me get this straight, you use crowdsourcing when it agree with your opinion, but in general don't like it. Sounds like.. selection bias.
Yes, let's let you get this straight.
"you use crowdsourcing when it agree with your opinion"
Your statement implies that I act inconsistently with my reference to crowdsourcing. The evidence doesn't measure up (explanation forthcoming).
I'm not a huge fan of crowdsourcing because it essentially represents an appeal to the people (a fallacy). On the other hand, it has a
reasonable record of accuracy, accounting for its recent popularity with projects like: AllSides.
And in favor of AllSides, bias is partly a
relative conception. To some in Europe, for example, the U.S. media are all skewed to the right. As a result, it's hard to escape the validity of a survey (to create an example) of all Americans that shows that 75 percent think the
New York Times leans left. Relative to the American viewpoint, we'd have to accept it as true, based on such a study, that the NYT leans left.
Clear?
By the way making your page based on an existing well known source is a crappy way to leech. If you want to make a fact check page, make it on its own merits, don't try to ride someone else's name and fame.
It's not a fact check page. Read the FAQ.
It's like all the douche bag books on Amazon (again from the right, always the right) attacking the work of someone else by using the name in the title.
lol
Yeah. Always from the right ("Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot"). Welcome to the U.S. Senate, Mr. Franken.
"Free Will: A Response to Sam Harris"
"God is No Delusion: A Refutation of Richard Dawkins"
Yep, always from the right.
The thing is, if you're writing a refutation of Rush Limbaugh or even of Sam Harris, isn't it just truth in advertising to have your chief subject matter in the title?
"Going Rouge: Sarah Palin: An American Nightmare"
This one's especially good because the cover page ripped off Palin's book "Going Rogue."
"Crazy like a FOX"
(get it?)
"Brainless: The lies and Lunacy of Ann Coulter"
Shame on the right. Shame, shame, shame.
Oops--almost forgot about letting you get one more thing straight:
"Sounds like.. selection bias."
Maybe if we expand the definition of "selection bias" toward the insane end. Selection bias is what happens when a representative (wrong term, but bear with me) selection is non-random. But I've been wondering for years how PolitiFact stacks up against other fact check services in terms of its public trust. The data from AllSides is, so far as I know, the only measurement we have. If it's the only measurement we have then it doesn't quite make sense to carp about it not being a representative measurement. A selection that represents the whole of a set is maximally representative.
Now, if I had a slew of polls available to me and chose the AllSides data just because it backed me up--yeah, then it's selection bias.