I'd hope that a person with Sanger's experience and insight would at least float suggestions, proposals, wish list, or any thing at all, to achieve something he'd consider more neutral, objective, or something.
everipedia.org I guess does some stuff differently. But if it has a different take on neutrality, it's not jumping out at me.
Sanger has some role with Ballotpedia? Maybe his vision for neutrality is there?
Just sitting here, I can imagine at least three different crazy experiments to play with neutrality. And I know nothing.
Also:
I was willing to at least consider anything Sanger had to offer, given his CV. But generally I fast fail (flip the bozo bit, summarily dismiss, shove into the memory hole) any media critic leading with "liberal bias".
I think he just has muddled reasoning. For example, his essay says something about Jesus, the Christ label, how the wiki is wrong... Or something. I was raised Christian, so I'm moderately inclined towards biblical navel gazing. But if Sanger had a point, it's lost on me. I'm just more confused after trying to parse his thesis.
Further:
I'll read any proposals for mitigating social media. I honestly can't even criticize whatever this is:
How to Fix Social Media in Three Easy Steps [2020/09/20]
I was willing to at least consider anything Sanger had to offer, given his CV. But generally I fast fail [...] any media critic leading with "liberal bias".
Especially when one of the main criticisms is "It's biased to say a false statement is false".
Sanger's fundamental misunderstanding is that a neutral point of view doesn't mean that the thing you're writing about is also going to be neutral.
It just now occurs to me that you're probably referring to the epistemological crisis. I don't actually know what that means, but please humor me.
Sanger teaches philosophy. To him, maybe there is no truth? Or that all truths are equal? Or something like that.
More than a handful of the geeks I've worked with were afflicted by the recursive discursive thing. Most bad was the philosopher software architect. Actually repeatedly debated metametadata, the data about metadata. I wanted to kill myself.
Tying this back to current events: It might be useful to have some canary questions, to determine the epistemological bent of the other participants. It's pointless to argue about facts if the other party doesn't believe in facts.
I'd hope that a person with Sanger's experience and insight would at least float suggestions, proposals, wish list, or any thing at all, to achieve something he'd consider more neutral, objective, or something.
everipedia.org I guess does some stuff differently. But if it has a different take on neutrality, it's not jumping out at me.
Sanger has some role with Ballotpedia? Maybe his vision for neutrality is there?
Just sitting here, I can imagine at least three different crazy experiments to play with neutrality. And I know nothing.
Also:
I was willing to at least consider anything Sanger had to offer, given his CV. But generally I fast fail (flip the bozo bit, summarily dismiss, shove into the memory hole) any media critic leading with "liberal bias".
I think he just has muddled reasoning. For example, his essay says something about Jesus, the Christ label, how the wiki is wrong... Or something. I was raised Christian, so I'm moderately inclined towards biblical navel gazing. But if Sanger had a point, it's lost on me. I'm just more confused after trying to parse his thesis.
Further:
I'll read any proposals for mitigating social media. I honestly can't even criticize whatever this is:
How to Fix Social Media in Three Easy Steps [2020/09/20]
https://larrysanger.org/2020/09/how-to-fix-social-media-in-t...
Non sequitur?