In this sort of situation, I operate under these rules:
1. Everything is data; there is no such thing as too much data.
2. All data is "good" or "bad" depending on verification of the data. "Good" data is that which has been verified by independent and reliable sources, "Bad" data lacks that verification and there is no deadline or schedule on verification pro/con.
3. The worst thing you can do when collecting data is form an affection for certain types or limit the number of points to be analyzed.
(This is all stuff I picked up in my Aerospace career. Check the story of the Lockheed Electra for the motivation for my attitude.)
Good summary! Took me paragraphs to say essentially the same thing. :D
1. Everything is data; there is no such thing as too much data.
2. All data is "good" or "bad" depending on verification of the data. "Good" data is that which has been verified by independent and reliable sources, "Bad" data lacks that verification and there is no deadline or schedule on verification pro/con.
3. The worst thing you can do when collecting data is form an affection for certain types or limit the number of points to be analyzed.
(This is all stuff I picked up in my Aerospace career. Check the story of the Lockheed Electra for the motivation for my attitude.)
~~~~~~~~~~~
Good points, particularly good for Aerospace.
For our threads, I see a slightly different slant:
1. Not everything is data. Lots of it is rumors, 2nd and 3rd hand. We do what we can with what we have, but sometimes we have competing theories from unknown sources, particularyly deadlines and expectations, none of what comes true. In the process, some feel let down.
I think for us, it's important to distinguish the quality of the information we are sharing. If it's a rumor from an anonymous source - say so and we can decide if we want to read it.
Sometimes, no logic or sourcing is required when rumors are espoused, but from Q , I read:
"Free thought" is a philosophical viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, revelation, or dogma." Q (#3038)
So for me, the rumors are "revelation". Someone said it and no logic or basis is given. It was said, that is all. Just as we're breaking free from MSM anchors with recognizable names quoting "anonymous sources", I see as swing toward placing expectation and reliance on received wisdom from anonymous persons quoting anonymous sources.
2. I agree with your point 2. I'll point out (c wut I did there) that we sometimes have to wait 2 years or more for verification and in the meantime, logic and reasoning are pushed to the side in favor of repeating the sayings of anonymous persons quoting anonymous sources. I'm not saying it's always bad, I'm saying there's SO MUCH of it, it can dilute focus and discourage people with dates that come and go, rumors that prove false.
3. Ah but here we have an influx of rumors and disinformation and I do think it's possible to have "too much" because we are limited in our capacity to consider so much content simultaneously..
I think we have a lot of content that isn't data. Brian Cates heaped vitriole on "idiots" who didn't believe his bizarre theories for 2+ years and when it was proven false, he basically borrowed from Saturday Night Live's skit featuring a character named Emily LaTella, and said, "never mind" and continue to churn out content of equal worth.
Now, actual hard data - that stuff's GOOD! :D