This blog entry was prompted by the Formula 1 Blog entry "Vox Certatus: Playing Favourites", which was about favourite teams and drivers and why we thought them so. Initially I took the question at face value, providing a somewhat lengthy response covering Force India, Hill, Fisichella and... ...Montoya. With stating why I disliked the latter, I inadvertantly kicked over a hornet's nest.

When next I visited, I cleared up a small misunderstanding concerning how I'd worded one particular phrase (or so I thought), but then the discussion drifted in a way I hadn't expected. F1 Kitteh asked me:

So you would rather have ‘scripted **’ than ‘verbal abrasiveness’? 

This is the question which I intend to answer here, since the "essay" proved too long for the comments section of Formula 1 Blog.

In my opinion, there are three kinds of verbal abrasiveness. One of them can be a good thing. Another is generally a somewhat bad thing, but can be very bad depending on the particular circumstances. The third one is always very harmful, and unlike the second one it harms everyone, not just the speaker.

To indicate these, here is my personal sliding scale of verbal abrasiveness and scripting, from best to worst:

Situational, justified verbal abrasiveness <- scripting/situational unjustified verbal abrasiveness <- persistent verbal abrasiveness

 
If someone is liable to be sharp-tongued only in specific situations and there appears to be good reason (e.g. they've just had a really stupid steward's decision against them), that would be better than any form of scripting.

An unjustified sharp-tongued incident tends to lead to biologically scripted behaviour, which is about as accurate as behaviour scripted by the powers-that-be (i.e. not very). This is why I rate behavioural and psuedopolitical scripting on the same level. I don't expect those involved to give the explanation for their behaviour as it is frequently obvious in context, but without some reason for being abrasive, one often finds that common sense and logic go out of the window alongside the politeness. I would consider Scott Speed as an example of someone who washed out of F1 partially because there was confusion over whether his situational abrasiveness was justified or not. I thought it was (from what I heard of it) but Franz Tost differed in opinion.

It's the people who are always abrasive, who cannot seem to go five minutes without denigrating someone or pointlessly attacking some slight, who are the least accurate and the most likely to drive me up the wall even reading their words. Most people like that end up putting off their sponsors and mechanics early in the junior formulae and therefore never get seen by the talent scouts, let alone anyone in F1.

Nonetheless, a few do drift into F1. Some people really like such people, possibly because they are so different to those around them or because they can identify better with them. Personally I cannot identify with them at all because I am accustomed to people who have a reasonable (though frequently imperfect) concept of keeping a civil tongue in their heads. People who don't get mad or dismissive at absolutely everything. And it's this which made me dislike Juan Pablo Montoya and Eddie Irvine. However good they may have been as drivers, as people they disappointed me and their ways of talking about others was the primary clue for me to come to this opinion.

(Incidentally, I prefer truthfulness - whether that's Mark Webber's brand of bold statements or Kamui Kobayashi's calmer candour - over any of the above).  

Ultimately, the limitations of particular drivers' attitudes, personalities and methods of thinking have a large influence on their enduring support base. Performance comes and goes but character tends to stay stable - most of the time. Different people tend to resonate with different drivers according to those characters, unless they are the sort of people who support based on performance (be that success or underdog status) or who support more abstract entities such as teams. Even then, teams have group cultures which invoke the general principles discussed here.

Speech is one of several doorways to the revelation of character. It's one of the more accessible ones to the general spectator, especially when spoken in places where journalists have taken the trouble to record the results. Look closely enough and the clues are all there.

Which drivers really think a given way v. those who are claiming it due to conditioning. 

Which drivers really respect - or even like - another v. those who pretend to respect another v. those who have dropped the pretence.

What each driver is hoping for in F1.

Which ones are likely to be around in a strong enough position to achieve those hopes.

Some signals in speech are more obvious indicators of character than others. A habit of persistently abrasive speech is pretty obvious. I just didn't realise it would be so controversial.

Script Frenzy Update:  20 pages of prose, which should become 40 pages of script when formatted. I feel confident about this challenge.

This entry was prompted by <a href=http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2009/...om-the-thieves>Joe Saward's blog</a> writing an entry on some rather blatant plagiarism between <a href=http://formula-1.updatesport.com/new...site/view.html>Update-F1</a> and <a href=http://www.f1-daily.com/news/article...site/view.html>F1-Daily</a>. The fact that F1-Daily has a story bearing the headline:

Not related to F1-Daily

perhaps suggests which party is the guilty one in this instance. F1-Daily also went down during the typing of this entry...

<a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_scraping>Web scraping technology</a>, which has been partially prohibited in Australia since 2003 under <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spam_Act_2003>The Spam Act</a> but has ambiguous legality elsewhere, appears to be the cause. Surely such behaviour is against copyright if nothing else, considering that graphics and verbatim news items were copied and uploaded to the internet with only the briefest (and most unintentionally amusing) of edits.

Theft is also implied in the act. Not only is that the root of the anti-web scraping laws, but UpdateF1 had paid for material from GMM, which was scraped and published without permission. Since the information was GMM's and it was licencing it out to UpdateF1, F1-Daily was committing information property theft when it scraped that part of UpdateF1's site...

...or was it? You see, GMM, for all that it purports to produce "between 10 and 20 original, highly researched and professionally compiled Formula 1 news articles for publication every day", doesn't own much content of its own. Rather, it looks through a quantity of journalistic output relating to F1, makes edits at most and then dumps it into an information stream. It doesn't apply the "two sources" rule that, for example, the BBC generally does. It's not clear how GMM acquires permission to re-publish such stories this way, but even if it did so by the expensive-but-legal method of agreeing article distribution rights, the theft would not be against GMM but its source publications (except, of course, for the aforementioned edits). Sometimes the edits might be enough for it to be considered distinctive content and therefore GMM's own material, but that simply raises it to the level of blogger.

As far as I can see, the main problem with GMM isn't the sourcing methodology, though I might question its legality (depending on how GMM came by that information in the first place). It is that it is not entirely honest about the nature of its output (this may be an understatement). If it was honest, fewer people would purchase its output. Those who did would not only be completely aware of what they were getting and make that clear to readers, but they could better hold GMM to account. For one thing, I'd like to see anyone acting as a professional information filter (i.e. taking other people's money for the privilege) to have at least some basic information literacy so that they could do their job properly. Simply dumping stories onto a feed and relying on feed recipients to do the hard work of filtering is not only amateurish, but fairly simple to replicate for free with Web 2.0 technologies such as Yahoo! Pipes.

It shouldn't be complicated. Everyone knows (or should know) that the journalists on the scene are necessary to understanding what's going on in F1. Logic suggests that they are the ones most likely to know the truth (or something close to the truth, where stories are at the guesstimate stage) and therefore the most authoritative sources. Sometimes other sources can come up with creative takes on a situation that shed more light on it - but they shouldn't be taken as gospel. For that matter, stories that sound completely ridiculous generally warrant further investigation before being believed.

Different circumstances affect the story. If you're in a paddock, you will see different things compared to being at the race but watching from the stands. In turn, someone watching from the stands will have a different perspective from someone watching at home. Indeed, the country "home" is in and (in some cases) the availability of broadband access or quality paper journalism can significantly affect what someone understands about a situation, for each country has a different combination of people analysing the typical race.

Furthermore, each of us has a particular talent for looking at different parts of the sport and for seeing it in different ways. When we write accordingly, our work improves and we help spread understanding and strength between one another. When we feign an expertise that belongs to another, we confuse ourselves and reduce the quality of everyone else's experience.

So let's acknowledge who and what we are. Let us try to fulfil the role(s) we claim to have to the best of our abilities, let others fill the roles we cannot and act with due respect to one another for helping build the F1 community. Some of us fill several roles - in fact most of us when we note that reading, commenting and posting replies can also be roles. In no particular order:

Journalists are journalists.

Bloggers are bloggers.

Podcasters are podcasters.

Forumites are forumites.

Commenters are commenters.

Media filters are media filters.

Thieves are thieves.

It's when we pretend to be what we're not that the troubles begin...

Warning! Long entry alert!

This blog entry started as a comment in Sidepodcast's discussion about trustworthy websites. During the discussion, there had been a fair bit of stick thrown at GMM (Global Motorsport Media) for stories being sent through their network without proper checking. What nobody had expected was for GMM itself to reply - at length.

I started typing a response, then came to the conclusion that nobody was going to stand reading the length of that reply in someone else's blog. It is worth saying that I'm only replying to the part of GMM's comment that requires a long response - quite a bit of it made perfect sense and merits little more than an "I agree". (If a GMM representative goes so far as to read this blog entry, then I thank them for their effort in doing so :) ).

The Whipped Cream Model of The Effects of Information Accuracy Expectation

Part of the GMM representative's comment queried how GMM could get so much flak when it was ultimately one of their sources that made the error. It is an interesting question. There definitely is a tendency to send blame for errors throughout the part of the system preceding the one which caught the error. This is because information is not like a water main system, where fixing the leak makes the system run correctly again (usually). Information typically goes through several minds before reaching the end of its influence, which means there are many checking points. It is part of human nature to check information. Therefore, the expectation is that information spread is as accurate as the provider of that information knows it can be. That is why information reliability has a reflection on everyone who carries that item of information.

The quality of an information provider is affected (among other things, most of which are not even touched upon by this discussion) by how closely the items of information provided link to reality. Accurate information increases the quality and the reverse is true. In fact, given how the human mind works, negative experiences stand out more than positive ones (and, in general, have more influence). One erroneous item of information, if in the wrong place, can throw askew a lifetime of understanding.

One could call it the "whipped cream" principle - in the same way as whipped cream transported from a cartridge to a bowl of pudding leaves cream stuck to the edges of dispenser and pudding as well as the cartridge, so the effects of information stick to the conduits and recipients of that information as well as the source. If the cream is in-date, then nice cream will stick to everything. If the cream has gone off before it's piped through, then everything will stink and, unless washed down properly, all the cream that comes out will taste funny even if the source was subsequently good.

This is why scientific journals have a process of peer review and reputable news journalists have checking systems. I have no idea what checking systems the German Focus magazine might have, because the only Focus magazine I'd heard of before yesterday was the UK science title. Focus should have checked the information before publication, but by the same token everyone down the chain should have checked the information as best as they were able as well.

As to why the messenger is getting shot, that is because blame is considered to attach to every part of the system that delivered the false information (the reverse is also true). So when the vote story was found to be inaccurate, Focus got some of the blame, GMM got some of the blame, the sites that spread the story thereafter got some of the blame and (in some cases) the individuals who went on to tell their friends about it got some of the blame.

However, previous track records are taken into account when the total effect of an information error is calculated:

- Focus is not the source of many stories we know about. While the readers of the vote story probably wouldn't trust it again, they are also unlikely to be in a position where that is an issue.

- GMM has had quite a few erroneous or misleading stories in the past. The effect of the vote story was quite small in terms of perception, it just so happens that it was the story that caused things like this discussion to take place (owing to a number of things over which GMM has limited/no control, such as the lack of substantial news that interested Sidepodders at that moment, the discussion of media quality issues in previous weeks prompted by the crossing of cut-off points (discussed in the "Information Accuracy, Freedom and Authority" section) and the tendency of Sidepodders to make lists - "Websites You Can Trust" being a very easy activity to turn into a list).

- The sites spreading the story often do what Keith does and moderate their feed. This reduces their informational error rate. While the individual erroneous story will have had more impact on them than GMM (and the more accurate the site usually is, the bigger the impact), the higher starting point of trust means that the net trust level is still higher than GMM's.

- The effect on individuals is varied and difficult for me to comment on personally, since I only told other people about it after the story was revealed to be false. Everything from zero effect to a complete loss of trust is possible, depending on the history of the relationship, the track record of the individual information provider and the receptivity of the recipient.

Granted, not everyone has the phone number to the right person in Mercedes to establish whether a vote on the F1 programme happened or not. I suspect that the nature of GMM may preclude it from having the right contacts to absolutely prove or disprove every story that crosses its desk (sometimes even the specialist press struggle). But a web monitor role implies that there is a certain amount of checking for accuracy.

Asking the source of each news item "What is the background for this item?" where it is not immediately obvious would be a good way of reducing the error rate while remaining within the powers GMM has. I suspect the answer received for the vote story would probably have allowed GMM to stop the story in its tracks, and maybe even issue a cautious denial itself. In the latter case, it would even have a (valid) scoop, which would increase the quality of the information conduit. In turn, this would increase the trust people had in GMM and increase GMM's ability to monetise that trust (which ultimately helps keep GMM going and growing).

Information Accuracy, Freedom and Authority

Next, the GMM representative wondered how the denial of the story invalidated the GMM story.

The explanation of this is summarised in yesterday's blog entry. What happened was that James Allen, a journalist most noted for his ITV commentary but who also writes books, mentioned in his blog that he had phoned Mercedes and they had denied the story. The key here is "he had phoned Mercedes". This immediately gave his take on the matter a more solid basis than the previous existing information, including that from GMM. Also, whatever gripes people may have had over James' commentary, he was not known for giving inaccurate information out (and when he did he usually got corrected before any damage got done, usually because the error had been committed in the high-pressure arena of the commentary box - one of several reasons why many high-speed sport broadcasters have two commentators). Taken together, this meant the information was most likely reliable.  This is known as information authority.

Information with authority tends to be believed over information lacking in authority. In an environment where pre-censoring is not practised (as in a place with a free press), this becomes important. The more censoring of information is delegated to individual intelligences, the more important information authority is. Note that information authority does not come from it having been approved by some (psuedo)political institution (otherwise we'd take everything the FIA said at face value), but through the likelihood of the story's proximity to the truth, the clarity and detail of the information, the track record of the information provider and how well the information fits in with other items of information the recipient possesses (or believes he/she possesses).

A free media tries to meet whatever is considered the most important value in the society in which it is placed. In the capitalist West, this often means being as profitable as possible. However, whatever other value(s) the press may chase have to be balanced by at least a modicum of what the people want, otherwise who will read their material? It so happens that when it comes to information, what most people want is authority. Many are satisfied by a low level of authority, but many others want the highest level of authority possible. Yes, it is possible for a news source to be wrong with authority, but if it is frequently wrong it will not retain its authority for long. The less authority an information source has, the less likely it is to be believed. "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" demonstrates this principle simply but brilliantly.

As for the analogy entailing our reaction to getting fifteen good strawberries and one bad one, there will be a variety of behaviours in that situation. Again, these vary according to the expectations of the buyer, the quality of the previous strawberries from that vendor and the quality of strawberries from other vendors. If fifteen out of sixteen is relatively good in the strawberry market, then people will be happy to continue with the vendor and will easily forgive the bad one. If other vendors routinely get sixteen good strawberries out of sixteen (and, to improve the analogy, charge more - with the strawberries, the price is currency, the other outlets' price is time waiting for the items), then responses get more mixed. Some will want the cheap strawberries regardless of quality, some want the consistently reliable strawberries regardless of the cost. The majority will consider both types. The more frequently bad strawberries appear, the more likely the high-quality ones will be chosen instead of the cheap ones, but everyone has different cut-off points. The vote story may well have crossed a few key people's cut-off points.

Speculation

The GMM representative made an interesting point about speculative stories. He/she says that 6 out of 10 "highly speculative" stories are completely false, 3 out of ten are partially true and 1 out of 10 is completely true. GMM's position is pro-speculation. A lot of the response is anti-speculation. I would be somewhere in between.

I don't mind speculation if it is clearly marked as such. If someone providing information has reason to doubt its accuracy, then that tag helps put the information in its proper context. This is especially true if a) the provider has specific grounds for that doubt and b) those grounds are provided along with the information. While it would be awkward for GMM to say it doubts an item because its source has previously provided dodgy information (for one thing, the source might refuse to provide further information to it!), other causes of doubt could be provided.

This is especially important given the failure rate of speculative stories. If we take the "6 out of 10" figure as true (while I have no proof, it's the most accurate working figure I've seen and the GMM representative is more likely to know the figure than I am), then that means the majority of such stories are false. That is a serious failure rate for information of this type, even if speculative stories form a small proportion of the total output. If an investment had a 6 out of 10 chance of losing money, the government would demand some sort of warning. While it would be wrong for a free press to have such a thing imposed on it from the government, the general public would benefit from wanting/expecting/requesting it of their information sources. GMM should be capable of it - the statistic provided by the GMM representatives proves that it is capable of recognising a speculative story, at least to an extent where it is confident of knowing the boundaries for the purposes of providing that statistic. If degrees of uncertainty can be indicated, so much the better, but one can't have everything.

Speculative stories presented as fact have no place in my diet of information. There's enough bias and disinformation-at-source to filter out without knowingly getting more from the intermediaries separating me from the source. Granted, GMM is not my brand of vodka (I don't drink vodka, but that's another story entirely...), but quite why anyone would want speculation to look like fact is a mystery. Of course I want to know as much as possible about F1. But taking in inaccurate information that has to be unlearned and replaced in short order gets in the way of that goal, especially since I only have twenty-four hours in a day*.

As for "wondering ahead of time"... ...humans are good at that when left to their own devices. All the likes of GMM can do is direct the path of such wondering. Asking for the direction to be as valid as possible seems reasonable.

De-bookmarking is a problem because of the ubiquity of GMM content across the internet (and, at various times, other erroneous stories). The interconnectedness of the internet can be wonderful at times, but a simple de-bookmark wouldn't remove the content in its entirety. What needs to happen is a better appreciation of how to spot a good story from a bad one, improved story moderation from everyone and a preference for accurate information over inaccurate stuff.

* - Could be worse. In the Triassic period, there were only twenty-three hours per day...