Statistics with "documented sources"

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Writing down 'numbers' does not make them statistics. If you wish to state something as a fact or a statistic then provide the documented source. Without such documentation, it is not a fact or a statistic - it is a personal opinion.

This is NOT an attempt to restart "that" conversation in another thread.

Instead, what I'd like to do is explore the above guidance and ask a few questions.

Point by point, as I think of them...

1. Not all "documented sources" are equal. There are openly racist sites on the Internet which publish their own cherry-picked statistical graphs and tables. I hope getting around the mod guidance on racism isn't as easy as picking a chart from a racist site.

One good example is that of a site which arbitrarily lumps the immigrants and the descendants of the immigrants from Asia and Latin America into one big group and then projects out their population growth, for the purposes of scaring the viewer into thinking "their country" is being consumed by the "others". It is a blatantly racist depiction of the truth, and yet a poster who chooses to use it (a poster has used it, many times) need only point to the URL and he overcomes the need to have a "documented source".

2. Even if a "statistic" is documented from a credible source, statistics are just numbers. They provide no commentary of their own. That role is left to the poster. When a credible statistical fact is produced but the accompanying commentary is racist, what then?

[ScottThuy 140]

Numbers are just numbers until they are put into an accepted scientific context.. then and only then can they be considered statistics..

I have seen far too many 'statistics' cited here that are just numbers that are taken out of context or in many cases skewed data based on a survey of a biased population rather than an accurate representation of a given population.

its amazing what people will do, to make numbers agree with/support thier ideology...

failed to support the null hypothesis?

[rsn 135]

Numbers are just numbers until they are put into an accepted scientific context.. then and only then can they be considered statistics..

I have seen far too many 'statistics' cited here that are just numbers that are taken out of context or in many cases skewed data based on a survey of a biased population rather than an accurate representation of a given population.

its amazing what people will do, to make numbers agree with/support thier ideology...

failed to support the null hypothesis?

There are several VJ members who fail to understand the concepts you have outlined above. cough cough booyapaulandvanessa cough cough. Ugh, gotta get that cold checked out.

Then there is the dreaded "It's true because I know someone who said it's true".

Edited May 3, 2010 by rsn

[Kathryn41 3,205]

This is NOT an attempt to restart "that" conversation in another thread.

Instead, what I'd like to do is explore the above guidance and ask a few questions.

Point by point, as I think of them...

1. Not all "documented sources" are equal. There are openly racist sites on the Internet which publish their own cherry-picked statistical graphs and tables. I hope getting around the mod guidance on racism isn't as easy as picking a chart from a racist site.

This is a valid point. I am reminded of the popular quote - "There are lies, there are damned lies and there are statistics". With posted sources, though, individuals have the opportunity to view the source and can - hopefully - determine for themselves whether a site is a legitimate source or one that is trying to manipulate information to say something that is not actually justified from the information. Many times we (the mod team) do look at the source of posted links like this, so this is a good reminder for us to continue doing so. A link from a blatant racist site quoting self-serving statistics should not protect a post from also being identified as 'racist'.

One good example is that of a site which arbitrarily lumps the immigrants and the descendants of the immigrants from Asia and Latin America into one big group and then projects out their population growth, for the purposes of scaring the viewer into thinking "their country" is being consumed by the "others". It is a blatantly racist depiction of the truth, and yet a poster who chooses to use it (a poster has used it, many times) need only point to the URL and he overcomes the need to have a "documented source".

A good example. It is easier for someone to see that this is what is being done, though, if there is a link cited rather than someone just parroting information they have read on such a site. Without a source there is no way to know whether someone is using good information, bad information - or just making stuff up. Quoting a racist link, as said above, should not protect a post or poster from being identified as racist - in some cases, it might even make it easier.

2. Even if a "statistic" is documented from a credible source, statistics are just numbers. They provide no commentary of their own. That role is left to the poster. When a credible statistical fact is produced but the accompanying commentary is racist, what then?

Agreed. That is where the interpretation of the TOS comes into play by the Moderation Team. If VJ members report such a commentary as racist, that brings it to the Moderation Team's attention and we can investigate. Again, racist commentary that carries statistics is still racist. Still, I would rather see someone's statements of statistics 'sourced' so we can determine both the validity - and the integrity - of the 'statistical 'source and see if the interpretation is valid or flawed.

Thanks for asking these questions and providing good food for consideration.

[Bernie C 24]

Statistics are very often misleading and downright incorrect.

Many groups or organizations (including govenrments) publish statistics which are really quite bogus, based on other percentages and % or certain demographics or locations.

They can be easily manipulated into creating the perception that the publisher would like you to believe.

One major error is to group things together. The second very common error is to include to many "groups" within a statistical database.

If I were to do a statistical analysis of imigration visas it would have to be a quite complex and deep analysis.

I would have to be broken down to very specific and controlled details.

1) Type of Visa

2) Consulate

2a)Consular Officer

3) Petitioner including a breakdown by age, origin, history, race

3a)Petitioner age

3b) Origin (cannot be simply categorzed as a USC

3c) Race (should not be a factor but required for statistical analysis)

3d) Income Level

3e) Etc...(how many categories can you think of that can have an affect - not just what the "book" says

4) Beneficiary (same type of methodology applies)

And on and on and on - this is just the tip for sake of establishing a few elements.

I think you can get the picture.

To perform a true statistical analysis there would end up being a plethora of things to be subjected to analysis. How else can it be truly broken down into derivatives of how things are truly affecting the issuance and decisions that are made.

And as long as there is the element of personal opinion invloved a true analysis could never be accurate. It may end up defining who is lax and strict in a particular consulate. There are a number of things that could be identified in this process but the true facts would always be flawed to some degree because there is an element of opinion involved and everthing involved os not measurable.

A true statistic can only be derived from something that is measurable and repeatable.

An opinion is not truly measurable.

I guess perfroming a six sigma or other form of true statistical analysis of immigration visa issuance is not a realistic expectation or applicable methodology.

I know this is not on the same path as the intent of the post but just throwing this out there. Maybe the diversion will quell things from getting back into where it ended up previously

[Petition2252 7]

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

[MRStee 19]

Thanks for asking these questions and providing good food for consideration.

Kathryn, I must say I always enjoy reading your posts, you always clarify things very well!

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

A good example. It is easier for someone to see that this is what is being done, though, if there is a link cited rather than someone just parroting iormation they have read on such a site. Without a source there is no way to know whether someone is using good information, bad information - or just making stuff up. Quoting a racist link, as said above, should not protect a post or poster from being identified as racist - in some cases, it might even make it easier.

I'm glad you think it's a good example, because a very similar graphic to the one I described has been in the signature of a prominent member for quite some time. The detail that has been removed from the version I recall from a few years ago is that any reference to racial stock has been removed. Rather, the reference now is to growth due to people who immigrated here after 1970. Unsaid is the commonly known fact that the immigrant stock after 1970 has been a lot more Asian and Latin American than European, unlike the pre-1970 era.

I am going to send you the profile URL in a private PM.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

... the commonly known fact that the immigrant stock after 1970 has been a lot more Asian and Latin American than European, unlike the pre-1970 era.

Documented source - http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2009/table02.xls

[LaL 418]

I'm glad you think it's a good example, because a very similar graphic to the one I described has been in the signature of a prominent member for quite some time. The detail that has been removed from the version I recall from a few years ago is that any reference to racial stock has been removed. Rather, the reference now is to growth due to people who immigrated here after 1970. Unsaid is the commonly known fact that the immigrant stock after 1970 has been a lot more Asian and Latin American than European, unlike the pre-1970 era.

I am going to send you the profile URL in a private PM.

gah! see now you have me going through all the ####### profiles I can recall

woops! found it.

Edited May 4, 2010 by LaL

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

gah! see now you have me going through all the ####### profiles I can recall

woops! found it.

I found another 'questionable' signature. It includes a link to a page in the following domain - http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/.

Here's how the site introduces itself.

While legal immigrants and illegal aliens come to America for an improved standard of living, those millions of foreigners are decidedly harming the quality of life for many in this nation...

That site is an attack on legal immigrants. It is in the signature of a prominent poster on a site dedicated to legal immigration.

[Peikko 1,575]

Good job. However it does not address the problem that anyone coming to VJ OT who is not familiar with how VJ moderation works believing that this site is moderated for racism would be quite disgusted in the things that get posted without qualification. Moderation that relies on people complaining about a post before it will be assessed results in a completely inconsistent message about what is and is not acceptable. Under these criteria it is not surprising that those who make racist posts seem incapable of learning what is acceptable and what is a reflection of their prejudice.

It is quite clear to me that there is a huge amount of prejudice attached to the arguments surrounding immigration, specifically how to address the problem of those who enter or remain in the US undocumented particularly by those who believe and promote the view, erroneously that doing so is in itself a criminal action. It is not.

§ 1325. Improper entry by alien

(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. (b) Improper time or place; civil penalties Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of— (1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or (2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection. Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed. <a name="c"> © Marriage fraud Any individual who knowingly enters into a marriage for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or fined not more than $250,000, or both. (d) Immigration-related entrepreneurship fraud Any individual who knowingly establishes a commercial enterprise for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, fined in accordance with title 18, or both.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Moderation that relies on people complaining about a post before it will be assessed results in a completely inconsistent message about what is and is not acceptable.

How else? Having a mod read each and every post is simply not practical. We'd need an army of mods, which would translate to an army of personalities and you end up with the same inconsistencies all over again.

[Peikko 1,575]

How else? Having a mod read each and every post is simply not practical. We'd need an army of mods, which would translate to an army of personalities and you end up with the same inconsistencies all over again.

I don't know. I wish I did. I don't like the current method. I guess my problem is that most people seem to want to have personal insults moderated - which is admittedly a lot easier to do anyway, but I don't get that, how does having an insult, or insulting post removed change anything, really? Whereas the more troubling areas of prejudice that surround the questions of undocumented migrants are often not reported presumably because it's more difficult for people to understand. Clearly we have many posters who believe that anything is acceptable as long as they qualify their statement with "I'm talking about Illegal immigrants". It wouldn't matter one whit if this was a website that was unrelated to immigration but it is, and as such everyone should have equal access to information without feeling that there is an underlying climate of prejudice against a particular demographic or ethnicity.

[Niels Bohr 72]

I read the posts in that thread so many times over and over. Unless you're the victim, you will probably don't know what racism is like. It could be psychological. I didn't even know I could be offended until I read the comments.

Edited May 4, 2010 by Niels Bohr