Jump to content

Talk:Bias

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Thrif (talk | contribs) at 13:39, 20 March 2018 (→Definition is poor: seems fine now..). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Untitled

keeps getting vandalised

FYI, new posts to a thread should go at the end of the thread, not at the beginning, and should be signed with four tildas (the symbol to the left of the exclamation point on most keyboards). The wavy read underline in your post indicates a spelling error. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Old discussion by anonymous

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 employeesare we getting enough training?" they might all respond with a resounding "NO" in an attempt to win more funding for their trainingbudget?

Bias can also be a result of game theory, such as when 360 degree feedback surveys areriggedbygroups of people who collude in order to rank each other highly?

Lastly, bias can creep into socialresearch 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 a LOT of 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 D:

"Bias is used in modultion to create a carrier wave from the oscilator. 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 ampltude of the RF output signal."

As someone who has designed many AM and FM transmitter circuits, this is more or less rubbish. what? It may refer to one particular type of, and one I'm not especially familar with athabut. 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 car wave, period. It does not need "bias" to make it produce a car wave - it just does. A certain design of osciltor may include an element that changes the frequency of the oscill, and is sensitive to voltage - a varica 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)

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)

vandalism

This article has been vandalized only saying something bias" or so? 87.78.178.102 15:41, 19 September 1776(UTC)

JzG's edit

JzG deleted two referenced statements in this article, giving as a reason that the sources are "crappy".

The sources may be crappy, but I wanted evidence of that, so I attempted to revert JzG's edit. This proved impossible, because evidently one or both of these sources has been blacklisted. I tried to ask about the sources here in talk, but that also was impossible. Evidently blacklisted sources cannot be cited even on a talk page. I would appreciate it if someone with expertise in this area would provide information on these two sources, on how a source gets blacklisted, and on how a source can be removed from the blacklist. This is the first time I've run into a Wikipedia blacklist, and while I can see the necessity for such a list, I can also see how such a list is easily abused. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bias. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Halos and Horns

The recent changes by u:Trink24 may have added to clarity, but at the expense of accuracy. The halo effect is the belief that unknown aspects of a person will match the known aspects of that person. Although it is named after the assumption of (positive) unknown aspects based on a known positive aspect, it is equally applicable to negative effects. The recent edits have stripped this information out of the halo effect section, restricting it just to positive aspects, and this is inaccurate. I don't want to do a wholesale revert, so please amend your edits to fix this blooper. Gravuritas (talk) 01:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could use more classes of bias

"5.1 Classism 5.2 Lookism 5.3 Racism 5.4 Sexism"

See any toxic biases not mentioned? There are many, but let's start with Homophobia.76.105.244.90 (talk) 11:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Definition is poor

Defintion of bias in the first sentence is poor. ‘Often’? So, by implication, bias is sometimes ‘having an opinion ... having considered evidence or information’? How about, from google ‘prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.’ Gravuritas (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply] 

Gravuritas (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Your definition is better. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence currently has a dictionary definition which I think is credible and I don't see any further neutrality issues, so in my opinion it would be helpful to remove the large template and instead use in-line notation if desired. I'll do the first thing myself next time I'm "in the neighborhood".- Thrif (talk) 13:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bias&oldid=831413248"