[nosurf]

The context of your example story is specific to those people which validates what you are saying - it wouldn't make sense if you said "NUTS". But it isn't a relevant comparison. An antidotal documentation of an event is not a body of work. The body of work of a journalist would be measured differently than simply the subject of one event that they are asked to cover. There could be exceptions to the rule but I doubt many journalists hit it big and hang up the cleats.

A body of work around a certain subject that lots of people study and use in their professions is different. It should be judged without the author in mind, otherwise how are you going to remain neutral and form your own calculated reality of how it works when you review work by other authors?

[dalke]

Why should I remain neutral? We live in a sea of biases. I think it's better to know one's biases and consider how that affect what one wants to do, rather than remain neutral.

I've been watching archeology videos recently. The archeologists are not neutral on what how to interpret their finds. They use their non-neutral viewpoints to help guide where they work next. They are also well aware that the views of their profession have changed over time, and that those views can reflect implicit personal and cultural biases.

In this case I do not think Zed Shaw's personality outside of "Learn Python the Hard Way" affects the interpretation or use of that book. But I think Galileo was foolish for putting the words of the pope in the mouth of the character Simplicio and expect the pope and his supporters to remain neutral.