More actions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Main|Ratings system}} |
|||
Traditionally, an [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/opinion opinion] is defined as "a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter". We usually distinguish it from [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact fact] by noting that facts have "actual existence" or "objective reality". |
Traditionally, an [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/opinion opinion] is defined as "a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter". We usually distinguish it from [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact fact] by noting that facts have "actual existence" or "objective reality". |
||
In the [[ratings system]], however, we consider all views, whether factual or not, as opinions. Therefore any statement made for ratings purposes is considered an opinion. Why do we do this? Well, for one, the ratings system is designed to bring out the nature of the statement made in more complex ways than simply fact or opinion. If it is truly factual, and true (eg the population of NYC is about 8 million), the ratings system will assess it as such. If it is intended to be factual, and false (eg the population of NYC is 1 million), the ratings system will not only flag the error but probably penalize the author as either having lied or being grossly misinformed. If the statement made is an expression of personal preference (eg Picasso paintings are disturbing), the ratings system can properly categorize that too. But there are many shades of personal preference. Much of it is benign (eg "I like Taylor Swift") but some of it borders on acceptability (eg "I don't like gay people"). They are both opinions in the classical sense, but they have implications which the ratings system will bring out. Some statements are difficult to parse (eg "gay people can't have kids") and require context to figure out their true meaning. Other statements are neither fact nor opinion (a greeting, filler statements, statements made for purposes of social etiquette, jokes, etc). The ratings system will generally be good at figuring out intent, which is an important component of expression. |
In the [[ratings system]], however, we consider all views, whether factual or not, as opinions. Therefore any statement made for ratings purposes is considered an opinion. Why do we do this? Well, for one, the ratings system is designed to bring out the nature of the statement made in more complex ways than simply fact or opinion. If it is truly factual, and true (eg the population of NYC is about 8 million), the ratings system will assess it as such. If it is intended to be factual, and false (eg the population of NYC is 1 million), the ratings system will not only flag the error but probably penalize the author as either having lied or being grossly misinformed. If the statement made is an expression of personal preference (eg Picasso paintings are disturbing), the ratings system can properly categorize that too. But there are many shades of personal preference. Much of it is benign (eg "I like Taylor Swift") but some of it borders on acceptability (eg "I don't like gay people"). They are both opinions in the classical sense, but they have implications which the ratings system will bring out. Some statements are difficult to parse (eg "gay people can't have kids") and require context to figure out their true meaning. Other statements are neither fact nor opinion (a greeting, filler statements, statements made for purposes of social etiquette, jokes, etc). The ratings system will generally be good at figuring out intent, which is an important component of expression. |
||
Along these lines we can provide a [[Establish trust |
Along these lines we can provide a [[Establish trust#Trust in Information|range to classify statements starting with hard facts]]. |
||
In addition to properly categorizing statements, the ratings system will bring out the provenance of opinions. |
In addition to properly categorizing statements, the ratings system will bring out the provenance of opinions. |
||
| Line 17: | Line 19: | ||
* Is it the result of an experiment? |
* Is it the result of an experiment? |
||
Opinions are complex because they come from many sources. It will be important for the ratings system to understand their origins since this information is often lost in the retelling of opinions over time. One example of this is [[wikipedia:Critical race theory|critical race theory]] (CRT), an idea that began as an academic legal theory in the 70's and 80's about systemic racism, was largely forgotten, but has now morphed into a [https://www.nytimes.com/article/what-is-critical-race-theory.html highly divisive political issue] over how history is taught in US public schools. The original work, as such, is still mostly forgotten. Our rating system should encourage author identification, proper attribution, and source tracing. |
|||
Opinions are complex because they come from many sources. It will be important for the ratings system to understand their origins (XXX, the one on the importance of origins). |
|||
The ratings system will also be able to track how [[Opinion change and propagation|opinions change and propagate]]. This information will be made readily available to users in order to encourage an introspective attitude with regard to the opinions they hold personally and as part of a collective group. |
|||
Latest revision as of 15:08, 20 September 2024
Main article: Ratings system
Traditionally, an opinion is defined as "a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter". We usually distinguish it from fact by noting that facts have "actual existence" or "objective reality".
In the ratings system, however, we consider all views, whether factual or not, as opinions. Therefore any statement made for ratings purposes is considered an opinion. Why do we do this? Well, for one, the ratings system is designed to bring out the nature of the statement made in more complex ways than simply fact or opinion. If it is truly factual, and true (eg the population of NYC is about 8 million), the ratings system will assess it as such. If it is intended to be factual, and false (eg the population of NYC is 1 million), the ratings system will not only flag the error but probably penalize the author as either having lied or being grossly misinformed. If the statement made is an expression of personal preference (eg Picasso paintings are disturbing), the ratings system can properly categorize that too. But there are many shades of personal preference. Much of it is benign (eg "I like Taylor Swift") but some of it borders on acceptability (eg "I don't like gay people"). They are both opinions in the classical sense, but they have implications which the ratings system will bring out. Some statements are difficult to parse (eg "gay people can't have kids") and require context to figure out their true meaning. Other statements are neither fact nor opinion (a greeting, filler statements, statements made for purposes of social etiquette, jokes, etc). The ratings system will generally be good at figuring out intent, which is an important component of expression.
Along these lines we can provide a range to classify statements starting with hard facts.
In addition to properly categorizing statements, the ratings system will bring out the provenance of opinions.
- Is it due to one's trust network? Ie is it a case where one has no personal opinion but is drawing on the opinions of others?
- The public writings of others. Are the sources specified?
- Is it due to independent research?
- Is it due to some verifiable chain of logic or mathematical proof?
- Is it the result of an experiment?
Opinions are complex because they come from many sources. It will be important for the ratings system to understand their origins since this information is often lost in the retelling of opinions over time. One example of this is critical race theory (CRT), an idea that began as an academic legal theory in the 70's and 80's about systemic racism, was largely forgotten, but has now morphed into a highly divisive political issue over how history is taught in US public schools. The original work, as such, is still mostly forgotten. Our rating system should encourage author identification, proper attribution, and source tracing.
The ratings system will also be able to track how opinions change and propagate. This information will be made readily available to users in order to encourage an introspective attitude with regard to the opinions they hold personally and as part of a collective group.