Talk:Bias

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Old discussion

Are we missing "strategic bias"? This is the bias that a respodent puts on a test when they are trying to alter the outcome for their own ends. For example, if you ask a group of employees "are we getting enough training?" they might all respond with a resounding "NO" in an attempt to win more funding for their training budget.

Bias can also be a result of game theory, such as when 360 degree feedback surveys are "rigged" by groups of people who collude in order to rank each other highly.

Lastly, bias can creep into social research where respondents second guess the questioner. This is especially true in cultures where there is an emphasis on not being disagreeable.

this important entry lacks references.

This WP definition of 'bias' has nothing scientific and seems mainly informed by 'media' and 'pop culture' considerations. Informed by political 'gut' feelings and not a by rational, articulted or analytical approach (not even attempted). In my opinion the definition should be re-edited from scratch to attempt a scholarly definition considering the point of view of natural as well as social sciences.

In my opinion the passage:

An example of bias is having an Americo-centric point of view (the point of view of an American, in particular one from the US), or similar for another country.

is unfair. Whilst I am no sympathiser with America (I doubt they need any), using any particular country in an example of bias is bias itself.

I think references to particular countries should be deleted from this article.

Funnily the first section seems to be quite Americo-centric since it mentions only American examples :) Fornadan 20:05, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I deleted the following para:

"Bias is used in modulation to create a carrier wave from the oscillator. In FM, the bias is quite high, and defines the center frequency. In AM, the bias is only as high as the peak of the normal audio input signal, and defines the average amplitude of the RF output signal."

As someone who has designed many AM and FM transmitter circuits, this is more or less rubbish. It may refer to one particular type of design, and one I'm not especially familar with at that - but it is not a statement that is in any way generally true. The first sentence in particular is simply wrong in any interpretation I can make of it. An oscillator produces a carrier wave, period. It does not need "bias" to make it produce a carrier wave - it just does. A certain design of oscillator may include an element that changes the frequency of the oscillator, and is sensitive to voltage - a varicap diode for example - in such a circuit, a bias voltage would be usually needed to establish the center frequency, and an AC signal applied here would cause frequency modulation - but this is all a particular implementation detail, it does not belong in this article. This use of the term bias is covered by the para that is already there. The mention of AM in this para is also erroneous, I have no idea what the author was trying to say. The AM modulators I've designed don't fit this picture, and I don't think my designs are especially wacky. In any case it's another implementation detail that doesn't belong in this article. Stay focused, people!

I should also say I have some issues with the para that talks about DBS receivers. I feel it is also very specific to a caertain kind of design, as well as being not terribly clearly written. However, I don't know enough about the subject to simply remove it, so I've left it in. GRAHAMUK 23:47, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology important for understanding English word "bias"

I would like to suggest that perhaps there should be a better definition on bias here since bias is taken to mean several things depending on which European root it was ultimately taken from. I would think that the English bias is ultimately an amalgimation of the two.

A) The Ancient Greek bia (pronounced Vi-a), means (when applied):

1. strength, force, opression, violence.

B) The Middle French biais (pronounced ), means:

2. a slant, an angle,

C) In English Bias means:

3 : a line diagonal to the grain of a fabric; especially : a line at a 45° angle to the selvage often utilized in the cutting of garments for smoother fit 4 a : a peculiarity in the shape of a bowl that causes it to swerve when rolled on the green b : the tendency of a bowl to swerve; also : the impulse causing this tendency c : the swerve of the bowl 5 a : BENT, TENDENCY b : an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment : PREJUDICE c : an instance of such prejudice d (1) : deviation of the expected value of a statistical estimate from the quantity it estimates (2) : systematic error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome or answer over others 6 a : a voltage applied to a device (as a transistor control electrode) to establish a reference level for operation b : a high-frequency voltage combined with an audio signal to reduce distortion in tape recording

Taken from (dictionary.com) & Pocket Greek dictionary - Langenscheidt.by Dr Karl Feyerbend.

--JamesTheJust 07:26, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History?

We have other sections, such as for 'statistics' 'computer science' ,etc. Yet bias plays a very important role in historical analysis. What of intentional bias in this field? though omission, eg: a document that may have omitted certain fact, details, and moreover, been written with a certain literary style so as to present a certain viewpoint, or perhaps guide the reader to adopt that viewpoint. Perhaps unintentional bias of this style could be covered as well? Seeaxid 02:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merge!

An article should not cover such a diverse list of topics. This should be merged with bias (disambiguation) and made a disambiguation page. The topics should be discussed at length only in separate articles. Michael Hardy 00:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree. One thing I remember is that I once tried to sort out the interlanguage links of the various topics this article discusses. In the end, not all articles could be linked. If this page was split up to discuss each topic at length, it would be easier to sort out the interlanguage links. Ae-a 21:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Done. Feel free to send flowers / rotten tomatoes.. OliverL 10:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia How-to

Q: How do I mark a wikipedia article as biased?

[edit] vandalism

This article has been vandalized only saying something about "bad shitty bias" or so. 87.78.178.102 15:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Institutional bias

I added the section about institutional bias. I feel compelled to note that I am not 'Jedi' (nor 'Sith') nor have ever ticked 'Jedi' on a census form. So have no beef to make in promoting the topic. If someone else wants to place a different example, feel free. I just found this a relevant and useful example that stuck out in my mind. UnterlandingZo 11:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The following I had posted and was removed which I am fine with, however (below): 'Another example of institutional bias is the Jedi census phenomenon in which governments of Australia, New Zealand, the UK, and Canada, despite having a statistically significant number of people mark 'Jedi' on the census, in some cases in greater percentage than traditionally recognized religions, continued to not recognize 'Jedi' as a religion. - It would also be institutional bias to not recognize something like 'Jedi as a religion' on the sole basis of governments, i.e. institutional authority, not acknowledging it.'

It was removed reasoning this: '(Not recognising "Jedi" as a genuine religion is not "institutional bias", since few people think "Jedi" is a religion, as opposed to a joke, mocking both the census and organised religions.)'

IMO I listed two types of institutional bias, 1) that the governments refused to recognize it, ok, apparently I am only guessing at their reasoning, perhaps this is not good. I am assuming they did not recognize it because it was not an organized religion; it was not institutionalized. They are therefore bias towards religions being institutional. I can now see it was correct to take it down, because I was only speculating at their reasoning for refusing to recognize Jedi as a religion. However, if it was official policy to recognize a religion as legitimate if x number checked it on the census, (I do not know if this was the actual case) if it was official policy and they ignored it, regardless of the reasons for ticking Jedi, then it is institutional bias, perhaps on the official's part, but institutional bias none-the-less. Perhaps someone else can come up with a good example, as the definition of institutional bias needs to be fleshed out. 2) individuals or perhaps other institutions that do not recognize some matter unless some form of authority officially recognizes it. This fits with what remains and the second part of what was removed. UnterlandingZo 21:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{unreferenced}}

I was WP:BOLD and added the {{unreferenced}} tag to the top of the page. It should have been tagged back in 2005 when it was first noted. I can't believe that a page referenced from a policy has been in violation of policy for so long! I also moved the worst of the unreferenced stuff below. I don't doubt that it is probably true, but it is to controversial to stand without cites to WP:RS and without them it looks like WP:OR.

This is particularly common in discussion of news media outlets such as CNN, Fox News Channel, The New York Times, Al Jazeera, and so on. For example, Bill O'Reilly has made accusations of liberal bias against the staunchly conservative Globe and Mail; at the same time, critics of O'Reilly accuse him of a conservative bias. Control Room, a documentary film made in 2004, has examined the role of bias in the media, through an examination of the conflicting methods of reporting the events of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, in Western and Arabian news networks.

--Dhaluza 19:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Usage of term in bowls

According to one dictionary's etymology, the term originated in bowls, and first came into psychological usage in the eighteenth century, quoting the example "The law does not consider the possibility that a judge may show a biass(sic.)"ACEOREVIVED 19:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Self Defeating

"NPOV requires views to be represented without bias." Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

"In theory, bias is a term used to describe a preference to a particular perspective or ideology, which means all information and point of views has some form of bias." Bias

If all information is biased, then isn't this page (which contains information) asserting it, itself is biased? And if so, doesn't that violate the NPOV principle?

Also, it seems to me to be violating NPOV because that assertion that all information and points of view are biased (aside from being self defeating which was part my previous point) is itself non-neutral with important philosophical implications.

I'd like to point out that "all information and point of views has some form of bias" is asserted to be a fact, not in the form of "____ says 'all information [...]'".

Paul Kennedy