Re:Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg
by spaniard89277 on Friday December 17, 2021 @07:49PM
(#29600257)
In Spain journalism is lazy, but instances of poor writing are much less common than in the anglosphere. They do clickbait, but maybe it's because the spanish language is more formal than english, you can't really bee too creative without writing something meaningless.
Re:Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg
by Eduard on Friday December 17, 2021 @08:56PM
(#29600761)
This comment needs several fact checks
Re:Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg
by dieortin on Sunday December 19, 2021 @09:48AM
(#29614331)
How is spanish more formal than english? You can write in a formal way or in a less formal one, like in most languages.
Re:Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg
by necovek on Sunday December 26, 2021 @04:23AM
(#29690923)
English is a bit notorious for "allowing" a lot of creative play with words (like that old quote of "every word can be verbed").
Another thing that affects perceived formality is that "you" in English is both singular and plural and out-of-respect You.
If you've ever done any translation between English and a foreign language, you'd notice that the appetite for such gymnastics is much less. (I think that's part of why there are so many English loanwords in other languages too, but I have no data to back it up)
Re:Open letter from the BMJ to Mark Zuckerberg
by PoignardAzur on Saturday December 18, 2021 @07:37AM
(#29604028)
> With more thought, perhaps the inferrable punctuation intended 'Disqualifying-And-Ingored'
Yup, that's how I parsed it.
I had to re-read it to find why someone might think it was nonsensical.
Are the partisan fact-checkers in Spain at least competent enough to write grammatical, parsable sentences and titles?
From the BMJ OP: > It has a nonsensical title: “Fact Check: The British Medical Journal Did NOT Reveal Disqualifying And Ignored Reports Of Flaws In Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine Trials”
Like the BMJ apparently, I first read this with a comma or mdash after 'Disqualifying' -- hence a broken sentence. With more thought, perhaps the inferrable punctuation intended 'Disqualifying-And-Ingored' -- in which case they might or might not be fact-checking a straw-man claim.
A negligible point perhaps, but the one fact-check I recall Dr. John Cambell on YT examining also included a broken sentence. (Small sample size, I know.)
To me, this speaks to the qualifications and processes of the fact-checkers under debate here, attempting as they are to adjudicate in scientific debates.
Attempting as they apparently are to define truth.
(Or perhaps Meta does A/B testing by breaking sentences in search of more engagement.)