Comments on: Credibility and Integrity

By: Josue Habana

Josue Habana — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:08:36 +0000

In blogging, I have found that trying to please everyone results i pleasing nobody. When you have an unbiassed blog it’s just like a BBC news program – dull and lifeless.

The reason Metaversally Speaking and a number of other SL blogs work so well is simply that they’re a platform for expression of opinions and views. The people who complain about biassed posts or facts held back or opinions overly stated are probably the same people who would tune out of a neutral blog and criticise the blogger for sitting on the fence.

You’re doing a great job on here…. and whether everyone agrees with your opinions or not, anyone with a grain of sense will, in the least, appreciate your creative and often witty means of expressing them.

By: Serene Fairey

Serene Fairey — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 00:37:19 +0000

Hey Prad what are the unwritten lines that bloggers dare not cross?

By: Prad Prathivi

Prad Prathivi — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 13:33:30 +0000

How about this article, where he clearly states he’s going to refrain from editorial comment (although he sounds like he wants to make one)?

http://nwn.blogs.com/nwn/2009/07/builder-bot.html

I certainly didn’t comment either, but it’s a case of how bias and ties influence what people are writing.

By: Adric Antfarm

Adric Antfarm — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 13:27:42 +0000

Good Lord. I was so into the blood lust I didn’t answer.

If Hamlet Au says something I tend to believe it.

He’s hard to lead off track (I’ve tried) and has pretty high standards in this non-standard SL bloggy thing.

Also, he seems to lack what drags the rest of us off track. Human emotions. He leaves it out of his work. A lot of us bloggers have not (and will never) learn to do that.

Does he has a horse in this game? Several. Books, ties to Rezzable, sells ad space,etc – but if there is an example of him letting that control him I sure as hell can’t find it. If I did you would hear about it.

By: Prad Prathivi

Prad Prathivi — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 13:19:20 +0000

@Adric – read the entry. My own biases are covered – I’m saying quite clearly that I’m biased, and that I’m making no secret of it. There’s no stone throwing going on – it’s a simple fact that bias is present within Second Life’s “media”.

By: It’s now a triangle

It’s now a triangle — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 13:17:32 +0000

[...] P steps up with an insanely clueless piece that makes me realize I love this [...]

By: Adric Antfarm

Adric Antfarm — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 13:03:01 +0000

Don’t you work for Rezzable????

Did the offer to build at SL6B come because you bash Linden?

Quit throwing stones in your…what do they call that..um..glass like structure?

On the plus side, your brave suicide charge (albeit totally misguided) against freebies did earn you much respect from my view. Doing what you feel is right (knowing it’s going to painful – and it was) takes some stones kid.

By: jaco

jaco — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 13:02:42 +0000

well, read anthony c. sutton about how the history really developed, for example. after that you won’t trust any media, school system or political system no more.

By: Shimere Felisimo

Shimere Felisimo — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 11:18:11 +0000

No source – or reader – is unbiased. The trick is to isolate the bias when evaluating the source. Bias is not necessarily a bad thing; we all have opinions. Far more fatal flaws are incorrect or inconsistent information (everybody knows this, but few bother to fact-check) and fallacies of argument (practically an epidemic). A quick analysis of the language of a source can also give you a good indication – it’s really not too difficult to determine if the wording is extreme or inflammatory, generally an indication that a source (unless satirical) is untrustworthy. Over time, a source that demonstrates integrity, objectivity and rationality will build up ethos – literally “character” – the reputation that it can be trusted.

It seems that these days, it’s fashionable to trust no one, which has led to a lot of people buying in to half-baked conspiracy theories. Or – if potentially no one is to be trusted – it’s easy to dismiss any source that we dislike. We get our news from sources that pander to our prejudices. This isn’t going to lead to any sort of truth…

As for this blog – I don’t always agree with it, but the arguments within are generally sensible and reasonably supported with facts.

By: Connie Arida

Connie Arida — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 07:14:02 +0000

Credibility: worthy of belief or confidence; trustworthy:
I think u can be opinionated without resorting to outright lies to support your position.
Integrity: adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty.
All the above lead to Trust. A Blogger that feeds lies and disinformation does not show credibility or integrity. Therefore their following opinion is not to be trusted.
You can be biased..but also show integrity and credibility. You mean what you say and have the facts to back that bias up.