Posts by linger
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Rosie is correct, apart from the timing of Maori seats and arrival of settlers outnumbering Maori.
From the 1961 NZ Encyclopedia:The first House of Representatives established under the Constitution Act 1852 consisted of 37 members. There were increases until 1881 when the number became 95. After a reduction to 74 in 1891, the present number of 80 (including four Maori seats) was established in 1900. There was periodic reform of the franchise until manhood franchise was established in 1879. In 1893 New Zealand became the first British country to give the vote to women [...]
The Maoris' communal system of land owning did not enable them to take advantage of the property qualification established in 1852 and, in order to give them effective representation, four separate Maori seats were established in 1867 on the basis of manhood franchise.
(NB: Pakeha settlers outnumbered Maori after 1858, so would have had a numerical advantage in any type of election.)
-
It seems like every time someone posts along these lines, it turns out that they actually write quite well ..
I'm sure there is a connection here, with causality possibly going in both directions.
On the one hand, the type of person that doesn't lurk, but dives straight in and comments, is also less likely to worry about editing themselves, and possibly also less likely to worry about the "worthiness" of their contribution. (Fewer inhibitions implies less quality control -- but greater quantity.)
On the other hand, the typical lurker, with (by definition!) more inhibitions about writing for public consumption; possibly less writing experience; and possibly less confidence in themselves and/or in the community reception, probably will take more care with the language and content of their first entry -- and it'll generally take some special topic, something that speaks to them personally, for them to make that first comment. (In my case, it was the arrival of David & Jen's baby.)
But on the third hand ... once former lurkers come out and play, probably they find they can relax their guard a little (as they find the PA community isn't that scary after all). So there's less correlation between status as long-time participant, and "quality" of comments made. (Note I'm specifically referring to comments, and not to the PA blog posts here, because the latter writers generally take more responsibility for delivering interesting content.) -
*denialisers*!? Uggggh...nconvinced of the need for that term.
If you really want to avoid deniers, then denialists would be better. Or you could try any of a number of existing synonyms: naysayers? doubters? ostriches... -
Kyle, did we just read the same post by Rex?
In the version I read, he explicitly conceded that on these scientific topics, the peer review was a better indicator of accuracy than his own (random reader's) opinion of the articles.
I read Rex as questioning, not the original study's methodology, but the generalisation of its conclusion regarding scientific topics as if that were equally true of all Wikipedia articles.
His point was that Wikipedia is "almost as accurate" for exactly the type of topic that can be most easily fact-checked -- i.e., where we should expect the greatest accuracy to emerge from wiki edits.
I think Rex is probably right that articles on other types of topic, with more room for subjectivity, will generally be less reliable. Of course, it's likely that an audit of Britannica articles would show less reliability for non-science topics there, too; but authorship (and/or editorship) in Wikipedia across politics, history, culture, or biography may be expected to have a higher wingnut-to-expert ratio than in Britannica, so the difference in reliability between science and non-science may not be proportionate in the two cases.
On the other hand, Wikipedia is potentially able to cover a much broader range of topics than any printed encyclopedia (so has some coverage that Britannica can't match, particularly on popular culture); and, as you state, it can be more easily updated. -
Placebo party anyone?
Your placebo or mine?
-
I've commented before on Allan Bell's research into scientific accuracy in journalism, but I guess it's worth repeating here.
Bell (1989) sent copies of articles on global warming back to the sources quoted and asked them to comment on any inaccuracies. Bell (1991) summarises the results of that study:
"Sources rated 29% of stories absolutely accurate, and 55% slightly inaccurate, with 16% in the higher inaccuracy levels [...] Scientific/ technical inaccuracies were present in about a third of stories ﾑ technical terms misused, wrong figures given, scientific facts confused. Non-scientific inaccuracies (such as mis-spelled names, misnamed organisations and wrong dates) also occurred in about a third of the stories, as did misquotations. About a quarter of stories had significant omissions or exaggerations."
(Bell, Allan (1991) The language of news media. Oxford: Blackwell. p217)More generally, the accuracy of journalism suffers whenever journalists stray from their comfort zone. In other research, Bell got similar results (an average of one serious factual error per story) for stories set in unfamiliar cultural contexts.
Bell points out that the errors introduced are not random.
All journalism has a number of observable biases towards maximising news value.
This shows up as exaggerations of: negativity, relevance to audience, unexpectedness, novelty, suddenness of event, eliteness (fame, talent, power, credibility) of principals and sources, simplicity of story, and conformity of story to some expected "script" or pattern, amongst other factors.Such exaggerations are most likely to occur in the lead paragraph, where journalists try to concentrate the most news value; and in the headline, where journalists and/or editors try to find an angle on the story displaying its news value to greatest effect.
The rest of the story may actually be accurate.
There may be (and usually, is) no intent to mislead or deceive the reader.
Unfortunately, the nett effect is to mislead the reader -- because readers are more influenced by the headlines and leads than by the more nuanced reporting that may follow.
In this case, the choice of the angle "they don't work" is entirely predictable, as it maximises negativity, unexpectedness, and relevance.
It's also an error.
-
Geoff-- while not disagreeing with your take on education and/or religion-based socialisation as "social engineering", I don't think that strategy of "turning it back on the accuser" will work. Labour doesn't look good on attack, it's reactive and negative. What they have so far signally failed to do -- and what they must do to win over the electorate -- is to take back such terms and identify them with positive values that they believe in. They need to state: YES, we do social engineering, we're proud of it, we think any reasonable government needs to spend time on social issues, here's why.
-
Another thing that depresses me is the way National have (with utter complicity of the media) totally owned the phrase "social engineering" and attached a negative connotation to it.
Where was the obvious left-wing response:
"What is wrong with trying to make New Zealand society better?" -
Craig -- I have to agree.
It doesn't look good for any government to be attacking the opposition (and even less so for them to seem forced into attacking the opposition). So my question above is quite serious: if the government shouldn't, and much of the media won't, focus on opposition policy, and National itself is either undecided or unforthcoming on any details, then how can voters get this vital information?Possibly things may improve once parliament is dissolved and the parties can be seen on a more even footing as candidates ... but I don't think I'd bet on it.
-
Snowy, I did say "honest", not "beholden" :-)