Jump to content

Tip.It Times - 8th April 2012


Jaffy1

Recommended Posts

What seems to be the deliberate misinformation in some of the Times articles is why I've stopped reading them almost entirely - it's not peer reviewed enough, and definitely under-scrutinized. Criticism submitted pre-release is an invaluable asset, but it seems that there's little of that anymore.

 

I wasn't directing the second paragraph at you - it was a statement against the general trend of tip.it times articles. I don't have any examples on hand, but I'll post some when this becomes a relevant subject again. You're telling me that you're receiving feedback, but I'm skeptical as to what value the feedback has, if it's not pointing out the obvious issues, e.g. the lack of information.

 

I honestly have no clue what you're talking about here. Times articles surely are not perfect, but I cannot think of even one example where an author deliberately used wrong information.

 

 

As for the bit about it being gambling/persuading the reader that it is: The article was not focused on the question whether SoF could legally be considered gambling, and unless you're a lawyer familiar with the particular jurisdisction, I don't think anyone can make more than educated guesses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm using the term misinformation in a context where even fallacious/poor argumentation may be considered so, as attempts to falsely persuade or otherwise mislead is a deceptive practice. You're right though, I should have clarified. I'm not just referring to misinformation in the context of using wrong data to support findings.

 

I'm not sure which quote you're directing your second response at, so I decline to comment until you clarify.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm using the term misinformation in a context where even fallacious/poor argumentation may be considered so, as attempts to falsely persuade or otherwise mislead is a deceptive practice. You're right though, I should have clarified. I'm not just referring to misinformation in the context of using wrong data to support findings.

 

I'm not sure which quote you're directing your second response at, so I decline to comment until you clarify.

 

You could call that misinformation, though that is already a bit prone to misunderstanding, but it's not deliberate misinformation by any means.

 

 

 

As for the second party of my response, it was mainly directed at this:

In response to the so-called 'steal of fortune' article - I just don't get it. If you've identified it as gambling, so what about it? You're citing real world gambling laws, but you're not identifying where these laws exist, the likelihood of falling foul to these laws, and whether it has any merit in court - it's an article short of elaboration and explanation.

 

I think the problem isn't fully addressed either - they call it a chance to win something, but what is the chance? Is it closer to 1/5, or 1/50,000? A brief indication would have been useful. As a reader, I'm left unpersuaded by your attempts at argument, frankly - if there were a scoring system, I'd give this a 2.5/5.

 

The point of the article was not to establish where this might fall afoul of gambling laws nor to persuade the reader that it is gambling. That's what I was getting at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... if that wasn't it's purpose, then what is? I don't follow. It's akin to gambling -> it's bad? Or am I really misinterpreting the entire premise?

 

I fail to see how its not deliberate misinformation if a fallacious argument is deliberately deceptive - e.g. straw man arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should clarify, when I said "nor to persuade the reader that it is gambling." I meant gambling in the legal sense.

 

What's the point of the article? To show why this update is bad, due to several reasons. One of them that it works like gambling though it is not necessarily clear whether it is in the legal sense.

 

 

As for the other point: If it's deliberately deceptive, then it could be considered deliberate misinformation. I still can't think of one example though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.