[Sigia-l] data as information?

[Scott Nelson]

>> The statement was an overgeneralization; the response vague - are you
>> looking for a style of IA who does, or specific names?
>>
> Just merely pointing out that statements like "all IA's do X"
> certainly is false.
>

ah. sarcasm?


> And sometimes a bit of data is the only thing you've  
> got...WikiPedia tells
> us about data: "a statement accepted at face value" while information
> is anything from "a message received and understood"
>

Sure. Sometimes data is all you've got.

I like the Wikipedia definition - I resisted temptation to look it up.

It strikes me that the difference between Data and Information can be  
defined in a somewhat similar way the U.S. courts have defined  
pornography - as stated by Justice Potter: "I shall not today attempt  
further to define the kinds of material I understand to be  
embraced . . . [b]ut I know it when I see it . . . "

The difference between information and data can depend on who's  
looking at it, from what angle, and through which lens. Simply put, I  
know information when I see it, and I know data when I see it. I  
can't define a clear line between the two for 100% of the situations  
I might need to.


> C'mon, the blur is bigger than my ego!
>

hahahaha! self deprecation greatly appreciated.


>> As data, you're either a 1, or a 0. Information is created by
>> interpreting the meaning of this.
>>
>>
>
> So, in "2 + 4 + 16 = 25", the "2 + 4 + 16" is data and "25" is
> information?
>

no. 25 is the "answer" incorrect or not. the information could be a  
lot of things:
- the equation
- the student's notes which indicate how they arrived at the wrong  
answer
- and, yes, the answer itself MAY be considered information

Our old (and new) friend the Hitchhiker's Guide comes in handy  
here...we know the answer is 42, but when the question is discovered  
to be "What is 6 times 7?" Ford and Arthur aren't very satisfied, and  
the quest went on.


> What I'm getting at here is that data + interpretation can still yield
> more data only. It is a blurry line.
>

Is a blurry definition a definition at all? I think it can be. Human  
language is vague by its very nature, and the amazing thing about  
people is, quite frankly, that we understand each other at all  
sometimes.

I suspect if we were just blasting Data back and forth, we wouldn't.  
That's the beauty of information.