I think it was very intresting and unbiased and it mentions this site and Ornery. Not a great picture, though.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I just moved the "Controversial Views" section below the list of his works. Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I just moved the "Controversial Views" section below the list of his works.
Thanks. That's more appropriate, I think.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I like this bit:
quote:Many credit Card with inventing the concept of the hyperlink in his short story "The Originist", written well before the birth of the World Wide Web. In the same story, he describes a research system that has a number of parallels with Wikipedia.
The way I comprehend the internet is largely based on thoughts I had while reading The Originist. I'm glad someone else picked up on that. Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
It's real unbiased to give equal weight to a newspaper column quote that he wrote within a two week window vs. novels he has given months and years of his life to.
P.S. In case you can't tell, I'm being sarcastic.
Posted by accio (Member # 3040) on :
Would someone change the photo? Please?
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
No! Don't! I was using it for a thread I wrote to OSC! I asked him whether or not he was sleping enough because *this* wasn't the best time to sleep! Don't change the photo!
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
quote:Originally posted by mothertree: It's real unbiased to give equal weight to a newspaper column quote that he wrote within a two week window vs. novels he has given months and years of his life to.
P.S. In case you can't tell, I'm being sarcastic.
I don't think it gave equal weight to his columns. Could you explain a little more about this?
It seems to me it merely mentions that he has written controversial opinions in newspapers, it doesn't seem particularly judgemental of his opinions, either.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yeah, but the old version listed those before his novels.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I updated the "personal Views" section to reflect some of his other views.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
Not that it's a big issue, but I actually think it makes a little more sense to place a list of his works at the end of the article.
Even if you disagree, though, it's hardly "biased."
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Thank you, Dagee.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Chungwa, why do you think that his personal opinions belong before that which he is actually known for?
And I do think inserting his personality prior to his works at least might be due to bias.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Dag, your latest edits aren't coming up for me. I see them when I go to the History page, but not when I view the main page.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Hmmm. I had to refresh a bunch of times this morning to see revisions. Not sure if there's some kind of caching going on.
Edit: removed URL cache override trick because that doesn't work for Wikipedia, apparently.
quote:Card is also active as a critic, political writer and speaker. Shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks Card began to write a weekly "War Watch" (later renamed "World Watch") column for the Greensboro Rhino Times as well as "Uncle Orson Reviews everything" which are both archived on Card's website. A self-described Moynihan Democrat, Card is a vocal supporter of George W. Bush, the war on terror, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the USA PATRIOT Act, and U.S. support of Israel. Card is also publically opposed to same-sex marriage and action on global warming, although he supports government-funded research into alternative energy sources and the phasing out of fossil fuel use. Card is also publically opposed to blocking the children of illegal immigrants from receiving in-state college tuition rates, tax cuts which favor the rich, and unfettered deregulation.
I added the bolded portions.
Posted by JaimeBenlevy (Member # 6222) on :
For me it goes Overview, Early life, personal views, other, bibliography. I think I saw the change yesterday though. I remember seing his works before his views. Maybe someone changed it back?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Someone did change it back, but the section title change from "controversial views" makes it more tolerable to me.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
They removed your expansion of his views, too, which sounds highly suspect ...
... unless I'm doing something wrong. But they really don't come up when I view the main page.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Are there any edits made after 14:25, 11 August 2005 from 67.132.198.254?
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Okay, NOW I'm seeing it. Weird. Thanks.
Nice additions, by the way Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Thank you.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Chungwa, why do you think that his personal opinions belong before that which he is actually known for?
And I do think inserting his personality prior to his works at least might be due to bias.
Well, because it seems like the list of work should be the last item. Again, I don't think it's a big deal either way. At any rate, the Overview is first, which is primarily about his books.
The main reason I don't see the bias is because the mention of his personal (and controversial) views aren't discussed negatively (the way it is worded, to me at least, doesn't seem biased at all).
I don't like it when people start insulting OSC (or others) because they disagree with his political/social views - but the article really doesn't do that at all. It simply mentions his views - it would make sense to me to have the bibliography at the end. Again, though, I don't think it's a big deal (which is why, I guess, I posted in this discussion).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
There was definitely a selection bias in the old version. There's also an ongoing edit war about whether he opposes gay rights or gay marriage.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
I am glad that they at least mentioned his views, I remember being shocked by them at first, now I just try to ignore them.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Pelegius--would you enjoy having, say, Rosie O'Donnell for president? I would not. That doesn't mean I'm against gay marriage.
The thing that bugs me about having an out-of-the-closet gay person for president is the fact that many gays don't want to admit that conservatives are not the devil. Conservatives are just a little shell-shocked from the (and this is my conjecture) difference between what they hear in church, and radical gay dogma. The divide in many cases is getting bigger, not smaller.
I read that sexual preference, gender identification, and actual genital formation are determined at different points in gestation, and are all controlled by hormone levels.
I also read that the majority of petrochemical toxins in our environment act as pseudo-estrogens, in other words, they cause estrogen-like effects in the body.
Does anyone have statistics on the percentage of gay people there are in the US, where petrochemical toxins are relatively high, versus othere societies?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I am glad that they at least mentioned his views, I remember being shocked by them at first, now I just try to ignore them.
I think they're perfectly legitimate to include in the entry.
I do think, however, that a more balanced presentation is preferable. For example, I believe many of the views of his I added are views you would more closely identify with than I.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: There was definitely a selection bias in the old version. There's also an ongoing edit war about whether he opposes gay rights or gay marriage.
Well, to many people they are the same thing .
But thank you for explaining that, I guess I only glanced at it when it said marriage.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
... and if I start at the front page and look him up, I get the "Controversial Views" version, too. Dag, were you working in some kind of "practice area" or something? Or am I doing something wrong?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Both links lead to the "Personal Views" version for me. One of us is having cache issues.
Compare the "Last Modified date" at the bottom of each page so we know which is more recent. The version I have says, "This page was last modified 07:26, 12 August 2005."
Getting it from the front page isn't surprising - it probably makes the first link when it does it.
I once spent 4 hours on the phone with the ISP for my old company convincing them that they had to turn the damn caching off for us and a client.
Posted by Peter Howell (Member # 8072) on :
I just navigated from the main page through the search field and got the version with "Personal views" and:
This page was last modified 07:26, 12 August 2005
Posted by JaimeBenlevy (Member # 6222) on :
I get the Dag version of the article when I start from the front page and when I clicked on both of Puppy's links.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
And bravo to the Dag version by the way. Good additions.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Thanks, Narnia.
On a sadder note, we see the inescapable problems of a wiki: it's attraction the most immature, vulgar, and disgusting people around.
I don't want to link to it, but there was a horrendous edit performed earlier today that suggested downright sickening things. It was corrected about 6 hours later, but since someone at 24.101.81.135 seems to have it in for Mr. Card, I encourage everyone to check the wikipedia entry when they think of it in order to make sure such obscenities don't stay up to long.
And I'm not talking about differences in opinion about how his views should be expressed. That can be taken care of with discussion. This was just base accusation and calumny.
Dagonee
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Ack. I saw the stuff you're talking about. Wow. Would anyone object if I hunted down that person and stuffed a sock in his mouth? Then set it on fire? Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
I get the obscene version when I follow the link, but when I try to edit the page it's not there anymore...
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*faintly* I'm getting the obscene version, even though the history claims it has since been revised.
We really need a puking smilie.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I hate to think it's someone from here, but maybe someone with access to the IP logs for Hatrack could check it out.
There's a lot of caching of wikipedia - some local, some at ISPs. The edit pages aren't cached, so that's why you see the difference.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*relieved* Well, however the caching works, the non-obscene version is now what comes up for me.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
My brother did a little searching.
IP Locater puts the IP address 24.101.81.135 in Toronto, Canada.
Searching the IP in google leads us to an email address here.
A google search of that same email leads to a number of forum profiles, one of which is here that gives an age and gender, which makes me wonder whether or not this person is actually matched with that IP.
--j_k
[ August 15, 2005, 12:36 PM: Message edited by: James Tiberius Kirk ]
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Wow. Do we all spam this idiot with hate mail now?
And come to think of it ... what kind of person poses as a thirteen-year-old girl online? Someone who is trying to pick up little boys? [shudders]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's not a sure bet this is the guy - IP addresses get rotated across users by the ISPs. We have to be restrained and fair in our approach.
So no spamming until the knee-breakers get a confession.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Google links the email back to Wikipedia here, and here.
Might be the same person?
--j_k
[edit] more stuff. 24.101.81.135's history also includes edits of this wikiuser's sandbox, who apparently was temporarily banned from editing. That username was previously linked to the email address above.
[ August 15, 2005, 07:52 PM: Message edited by: James Tiberius Kirk ]
Posted by JaimeBenlevy (Member # 6222) on :
So what exactly did this guys say? What did he change?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: 24.101.81.135 is also responsible for edits of the Encylcopedia Brittanica entry, replacing every "e" on the page with "æ"
Okay, I've got to admit that's really funny. Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Jamie:
Wikipedia keeps all (or most?) of its previous edits; here[link removed] is the log for that particular edit. On the left side is the changes that the person made, on the right is what Dag changed it back to.
--j_k
[ August 15, 2005, 08:32 PM: Message edited by: James Tiberius Kirk ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And if this jerk had just changed all OSC's name to "Öŗşŏń Šċŏŧŧ Čæřđ" I might have laughed.
quote:So what exactly did this guys say? What did he change?
Go look in the history tab for an idea.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
In any case, you can try a google search of the the username attached to the sandbox link above. Interesting stuff there.
--j_k
Posted by JaimeBenlevy (Member # 6222) on :
I'm in if you guys decide to spam his @!# with hate mail.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
JTK, someone else caught it and changed it before I discovered it. I've been keeping tabs to see if my edits get taken out, and I came across it last night.
I would remove the link. I'd hate for it to get picked up by Google.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
I just edited the post. Was it that link?
--j_k
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yeah, thanks.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
I wonder if we could googlebomb that guy by linking to him in a million places with the word "pedophile" ... Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm trying to be good here, Puppy.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Awwww ...
Posted by genius00345 (Member # 8206) on :
Wow. Just saw the page with all the bad stuff about OSC. I'm completely disgusted that someone would do that. I use and edit Wikipedia often, and if I had not known the truth about OSC, I might have believed it.
The user needs to be caught. Now. And severely punished.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Does wikipedia have any mechanism to weed out people like that?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Vigilante justice. *cracks whip*
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
I'm getting the good version now...I'm glad you guys caught the other one.
I really do wish we could change the picture to about two frames later in whatever video it was taken from. But alas, you can't have great Dag edits AND a good picture.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
.![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
And severely punished.