What is 'An Authority'?

[postscript]

At the Bath Forum, in a quiet moment waiting for Hayley and Jill to emerge through the auditorium to greet us, Dave and I had a discussion about what is meant by 'authoritative'. How does one know that the information being supplied is accurate and up-to-date?

There has been some debate on this subject, in small doses sufficient not to upset Mods by 'going off topic' in several threads reasonably recently. The most recent being the discussion as to whether Hayley's second book was biography or autobiography and what is meant by a ghost writer, contributor, editor, publisher: where do the roles cross-over, interlink etc?

The present discussion was started by the news that Google is to publish its own version of Wikipedia. Unlike Wikipedia, which uses the offerings of any Tom Dick or Harry (rather like estate agents where absolutely no qualification in anything seems the standard qualification for all of them) Google intends approaching 'selected' subject 'authorities' for their definitions.

In a previous thread whose title I now forget, I quoted from the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary where the then master editor was a C T Onions who had some seven degrees and was associated with three or four other internationally renowned academic institutions. To me, this is someone who 'has authority' on the subject of English Language and word defnitiion.

If we relate this to Hayley, certain HWI members can claim a 'certain authority' in the length of time they have interacted with Hayley's management, the information they have gleaned (and exists on this site as being records of direct contact 'from the horse's mouth--or perhaps that should be 'kiwi's' mouth) and therefore come from almost as direct knowledge as Hayley herself. In fact, this site could now claim a certain 'Hayley authority' as it records much of where she was at certain times and from several viewpoints how things went. Thus through the contributions of members of HWI this site is acquiring the status of 'an authority' on Hayley as good as any celebrity's infomation from working with Hayley herself.

It recorfds factual events. It records a diveristy of opinion on how those events were received by the contributors from which a reasonably authoritative impression can be gained since individual contributors' views can be cross-referenced in order to eliminate their particular subjective bias. It is this sort of thing that in my view represents 'an authority'.

Any further contributors on this one?

Two points to bring in a little humour.

It is often said that in order to be a psychiatrist it is first necessary to be somewhat mad oneself--even amongst doctor's there are divergent opinions!

Professor A was chatting with Professor B during the course of which they had a disagreement about a certain definition. They agreed to refer to the Encyclopedia Britannica as the 'absolute authority'.

Professor B looked up the subject matter and somewhat shamefacedly read out word for word what Professor A had just said. Reluctantly he agreed that Professor A was right. Professor A's response? 'Yes, I thought that was what I wrote at the time.'

Peter S.

Mods: Something funny happening here. 'Thingy' should be thingy but while I can modify it in the edit screen it will not show in preview or publish permanently, even refreshing bowser for reading.

[roger]

postscript said:

Mods: Something funny happening here. 'Thingy' should be thingy but while I can modify it in the edit screen it will not show in preview or publish permanently, even refreshing bowser for reading.

Hi Peter,

All that happened is that the software operated correctly. The word which you attempted to use, which is perfectly acceptable in the context in which it was intended, has another meaning which is not. Unfortunately, the software cannot take the intended meaning into account and merely recognises the word as being one which appears in the censored word list. It therefore replaces it with an "acceptable" word which, in this case, makes a nonsense of your intended meaning. That is an unfortunate consequence of the need for the existance of that censored word list. We are able to adjust the list manually but that could have an unacceptable consequence in the event of that word being used in the future.

Please accept my apologies for the inconvenience but, in general, the softwware exists to protect the well-being of the forum.

Roger

[postscript]

roger said:

postscript said:

Mods: Something funny happening here. 'Thingy' should be thingy but while I can modify it in the edit screen it will not show in preview or publish permanently, even refreshing bowser for reading.

Hi Peter,

All that happened is that the software operated correctly. The word which you attempted to use, which is perfectly acceptable in the context in which it was intended, has another meaning which is not. Unfortunately, the software cannot take the intended meaning into account and merely recognises the word as being one which appears in the censored word list. It therefore replaces it with an "acceptable" word which, in this case, makes a nonsense of your intended meaning. That is an unfortunate consequence of the need for the existance of that censored word list. We are able to adjust the list manually but that could have an unacceptable consequence in the event of that word being used in the future.

Please accept my apologies for the inconvenience but, in general, the softwware exists to protect the well-being of the forum.

Roger

Fully understood, Roger. I had completely forgotten that angle and because of my recent background I had feared something was seriously untoward. Nearly PM'd you in something of a panic. I have 'quoted' you simply as it further draws attention of members to the problem. I was so concerned I actually logged out and came back in on Firefox!

Peter S.

[milewalker]

This appeals greatly to my sense of the ridiculous. Why then does the software allow Peter to post his own name?

Look, there are words which I know quite well should not be used in a public forum, and while it is against my religion to censor, I tolerate automated devices to save people from themselves.

The problem is that at the level you are trying to do it here, I dont think it can be done consistantly. I have never had the software do that to me (that I know of) presumably because my mental software filters out such things before I write them. However, if I gave the matter some thought, I could come up with dozens of catch words for body parts and actions which are acceptable in some contexts and not in others. I suspect that most writers could. I used to work with a guy named Johnson White. If I were into sewing as a hobby, I might accidentally prick my finger. [Edit: see next post]

Jon

[Richard]

Hello Jon.

The answer to your question is that a moderator will step in and delete the question.

Richard

[postscript]

richnorri said:

Hello Jon.

The answer to your question is that a moderator will step in and delete the question.

Richard

To be fair to the mods one must remember that this is a 'fit all system' where some individualities has to be sacrificed for the benefit of the collective whole. SOMEthing is far better than NOTHING! Which is basically the practical alternative.

Peter S.

[milewalker]

Peter,

How exactly does "fit all" mean anything different than "least common demonimator"?

I see, Richard....so you admit that the software doesnt work! That of course was exactly me point

Jon

[Dave]

Hi Jon,

The software does what's written on the tin. It is a crude method of reducing the moderators' workloads, that's all. Even the most sophisticated and costly software cannot effectively replace the human 'editor' as I am sure Peter or any other writer would testify so all we expect from this free and basic software is a little help in keeping the workload down.

If nothing else, it lets members know which words to avoid and if so, it's doing its job.

Cheers, Dave

[stevemacdonald]

Thanks Peter for starting this discussion! I was raised to "question authority" and this outlook serves me well in most cases.

I feel that HWI is reasonably authoritative, but it is by no means exhaustive when it comes to Hayley. Much of what she does publically is reported on in here through the collective eyes of her fans, but that reportage could be misleading if everyone is trying to make her look good. Do her gaffes and slip-ups make the news in here? I tend to think not, because we are a devoted and loyal lot and that detracts a bit from the sheer objectivity an authority should possess.

When I read a glowing report in here on an appearance Hayley makes I typically assume the basic facts are unimpeachable, since so many in HWI go to these affairs and take copious mental notes and photographic evidence. However, I just as typically feel more informed by reviews originating outside of HWI, such as the ones from the Il Divo and CW fan sites' forums. When a non fan says she performed brilliantly, I know she really did.

[milewalker]

Heh

I was not only raised to question authority - but to actually be iconoclasitc. Part of it is my nature too of course...

Steve, your attitude towards what one finds on this site is pretty good. It gets back to the "rose colored glasses" which fans -especially at this level - find nearly impossible not to wear. Of course, whether or not this matters depends greatly on the topic being discussed.

There are also specific things to look for - any time someone writes something about Hayley, and uses a phrase like "cute little habits" it is a sure sign that this person is too smitten to achieve anything near objectivity. For this reason, I find the souces you mention as well as Amazon customer reviews, and offical reviews of her work in the papers and on line to be at least as informative overall - Any conclusion I reach will therefore ideally be a gestalt of as may different authorities and as much though and research as I have time to lend to the topic. At least that is how its supposed to work for me - sometimes, just like anyone else, it doesnt.

I think that somewhere in here would be my actual personal answer to Peter as well. An "Authority" is basically any reasonably comprehensive source of information which is both factually correct based on current knowledge, and unbiased in its presentation. In the end the only person who can judge those things for me, is me.

Even given all of that, sometimes the authortive answer isnt the right one....and it is also interesting that Steve;s post and this response have made the meaning of "authority" drift slightly, because the phrase "in authority" has a rather different connotative meaning.

Jon

[stevemacdonald]

postscript said:

... If we relate this to Hayley, certain HWI members can claim a 'certain authority' in the length of time they have interacted with Hayley's management, the information they have gleaned (and exists on this site as being records of direct contact 'from the horse's mouth--or perhaps that should be 'kiwi's' mouth) and therefore come from almost as direct knowledge as Hayley herself.... .

But the "certain authority" certain HWI members can claim due to direct interactions with Hayley and management is still questionable. Surely, Hayley knows that when she chats with any HWI-affiliated fan she's also talking to the wider group and the internet as a whole. Even the most direct info might have a built-in spin that might go undetected at first blush. I envy those who feel they are directly "in the know" but I wonder also whether this closeness has led to their being co-opted for purposes that haven't come to light.

[comet]

Smitten. Huh !

:2fun:

EnCHANTed also perhaps.

[graemek]

Hi Comet...........sigh.....
& hi all the other posters.

I must say I've enjoyed reading the accounts with their arguments about what is & isn't authoritative.

I have in my head certain contributors in this forum who I regard as very robustly authoritative in their musical knowledge & opinions.

I do take notice of what they say. I'm also very swayed at the same time that they "love Hayley to bits". Very important !!!!!

If they loathed her then I'd pay no attention whatever.....why?....they're biassed. Might be jealous of her too.

Both the heart & the head play their parts.

Graeme

[milewalker]

One other thing regarding those who have met Hayley. Even if for the sake of argument. Even were I to assume that they were reasonably objective in their depiction of those meetings, there is another problem there in my opinion. I am a different person at work than I am among friends - and probably different to my wife that in either place. We all take certain different aspects of our personality, and pick and choose the ones which fit best as we deal with individual circumstances. In a sense we all wear masks, In the case of a performer, this mask is often called an "image" - but the psychology behind it is exactly the same.

What certain forum members have been lucky enough to do is to regularly interact with Hayley under specifically controlled circumstances. I would disagree that this makes them "authorities" about her on that basis alone, because she is only seen in controlled events which are directly involved with her working. What she is like when she gets up in the morning? What is she like when she is having a really bad day personally or when she is in a bad mood? How do you know that she isnt the way she appears at least in part because she understands that it is part of her job? There are after all many things that I do at work - sometimes even things I derive some measure of enjoyment from - that I simply would be very unlikely to do elsewhere. To everything there is a season.

I would say that some of our forum members are certainly authoritative on matters involving publically released information regarding Hayley's career. Perhaps they are even authoritative on the way in which Hayley presents herself in public venues. I dont think I would take it much beyond that.

Jon

PS Graeme - anyone who loathed Hayley would be very unlikely to be here in the first place, which makes your comment a bit hard for me to understand. In the context of her career, the people who dont like Hayley are every bit as important as the people who do, probably even more so.

PPS - Always remember that Galen and Ptolemy were once considered authorirties.

[Dave]

Hi Jon,

I don't for one moment think Peter is suggesting that any of us (or this forum) is authoritative about Hayley's private life or persona. Her personal friends and family and Hayley herself are, of course, the 'authorities' on that. However, someone fairly new to Hayley's music would be hard pressed to find a more accurate publicly available source than this forum for factual information about her public life, appearances, performances, recordings and even, perhaps, to be able to glean some insight into her personality.

If incorrect facts are stated here, someone is likely to correct them pretty quickly. I think that is the kind of thing Peter is referring to and some of the less authoritative sources he might have in mind are, for example, Wikipedia, individual newspaper magazine or online articles - and occasionally, even Record Company press releases. It is, of course, possible for anyone to bring together such information for themselves by undertaking painstaking personal research but that can take a long time. However, We do that all the time, do we not? But "we" have the advantage of being able to seek confirmation or denials from Hayley's management or (rarely because we try not to) from Hayley herself. Many times we have identified and corrected serious errors put out by concert venues and other parties, for example.

It would of course be rather silly for someone seeking subjective information about "how good" a singer is to look solely in the singers fansite or forum (other than to listen to available clips, videos etc.) but I think we all know that. They do as you say need to seek that sort of opinion additionally from a range of independent sources.

As for Hayley's private life, persona, personality... well if it is any different from her public face we may never know for sure and we try never to intrude into it. It's not really any of our business but even so, many of us think we know what kind of person she is and we are all entitled to our opinion, good bad or indifferent. When stories about it occasionally 'emerge', they are clearly going to be of interest to most Hayley fans - but we rarely if ever tolerate speculation about it - we try to stick to known facts or publicly available information from the media (which we try to check, if it is significant news). I cannot recall that we have ever permanently suppressed any such information that did come out and could be verified - good or bad.

I'll finish by adding a general comment about people in the public eye and this probably applies even more to colleagues at work. It is very hard indeed for them to put on a false face over a period of several years and never to let the mask slip - though many have tried and failed. I leave you with that thought.

Cheers, Dave