Can anybody conceive why they are using THIS picture of Mr. Card? Are there none out their that confirm the existance of his eyes?
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
If you don't like it, find another one and put it on the site.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Done
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
There is a surprising amount of material that doesn't have articles. If only I weren't so lazy.
Oh man, inclusion of information on his weight is the sort of thing that makes me not want to have anything to do with Wikipedia.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Please make sure that picture isn't copyrighted, Jay. That violates Wikipedia's terms.
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
It's copyrighted by us at Hatrack. Permission is granted.
Posted by dantesparadigm (Member # 8756) on :
Cool.
I don't know how they managed to snap a picture of you in what appears to be the middle of a sneeze.
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
From wiki:
quote:Card has written two different depictions of homosexual characters finding happiness by entering an opposite-sex marriage – one in his Shadow series, and one in his Homecoming series, in which a gay man living within a tiny community of space colonists chooses to marry a woman and have a child in order to "rejoin the web of life" and perpetuate the human race in the new world.
I can't think of anyone in the Shadow series, but I could be wrong. Anyone care to enlighten me?
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
Anton (was that his name?) He was first introduced when Sister Carlotta visited him to learn the details of Bean's condition in ES. Bean and Petra also visit him in SP, and he helps to convince Bean to have children with Petra. I'm pretty sure he also appears in SotG, but I can't remember what role he plays exactly.
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
Anton is gay? And married? I'll have to read it again... after I finish my Harry Potter paper.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
I don't think that the text comes right out and says it, but it is STRONGLY implied. Read the chapter where Bean and Petra visit him in SP.
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
I also show homosexuals having homosexual relationships. I've known people in both situations, and in my fiction try to depict them honestly and accurately. My fiction is not a soapbox, it's a subcreation (to use Tolkien's term) in which I try to create plausible characters in plausible relationships with each other and the world around them. It would be absurd for me to show every homosexual living in utter happiness OR in utter misery just because I have opinions about what public policy ought to be in our contemporary world. It would pollute my fiction to bend it to fit my or anyone else's ideology - except, of course, the ideologies of my various characters, to the degree they act according to their beliefs.
Homosexuality is not a major theme in my work; I don't write about it obsessively (either in my fiction or in my published essays), I don't crusade about it, it isn't a "cause" of mine. It says far more about the surrounding society's obsessions that THIS theme is probably the most controversial one in my work. Apparently some people simply cannot rest with the knowledge that someone, somewhere, has an opinion that diverges from their own.
Oddly enough, I have been roundly criticized INSIDE the Mormon Church because my fiction is so favorable to homosexuality. Go figure.
Fortunately, most people keep things in perspective and read my stories for what they are, instead of for what someone thinks they ought to have been. Look at how dated "feminist" stories of the 70s or "anti-Communist" stories of the 50s feel today, and you'll see what I mean.
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
I went into the wikipedia stuff about me and fiddled, adding some information about my career and correcting small errors of fact and clarifying places where the original writers leapt to their own conclusions not based on what I said. Where they reported what OTHER people say about me, I left those bits alone, of course - I only corrected spots where they summarized my statements, beliefs, or actions inaccurately. I believe in the kind of thing wikipedia does, so I would not want to meddle with it to bend it in my favor; what I was pleased with, actually, was how fair the consensus process of wikipedia turned out to be. I hadn't read it till now, precisely because I assumed it would have been mostly written or edited by those determined to believe that I'm the devil.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
You're not the devil?
Aw, man. All those small children...wasted on someone who's not even the devil.
Thanks a lot.
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
I think of myself as more of a Puck than a Satan.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orson Scott Card: It's copyrighted by us at Hatrack. Permission is granted.
That probably won't be sufficient for them, but it alleviates my only concern. Posted by Soara (Member # 6729) on :
Somebody went crazy on Wikipedia...there are seperate entries for each of the characters in Enders Game?? Isn't that abusing the system just a little? Posted by CRash (Member # 7754) on :
I didn't know "Christmas in Battle School" was to be set after Shadow of the Giant, or that Edmund Schubert will become the new editor of IGMS tomorrow. The kinds of things you learn from Wikipedia...
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
and to think, they banned it at my school.
tsk tsk.
it really is useful though.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
I usually use wikipedia to read about things that I already know about, just for fun, and in my experience it usually is quite accurate. Most contributors take it seriously and only add true info, and point it out if something is unconfirmed.
Posted by Reaverdrop (Member # 9472) on :
Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! If you intend to grant permission for use of the new O.S. Card image, you may want to indicate so here, including with what type of license or restrictions you convey the permission. Otherwise the Recent changes patrol may remove it. Particularly because the image is currently labeled as a scan from a newspaper, it will almost certainly be tagged soon as mislabeled, in which case it will not last long.
Thanks! - a Wiki Borg drone
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
It's true that what I perceive as the "mainstream" of Mormonism is made uncomfortable by a lot of OSC's writings.
SPOILERS I don't see Zdorab and Anton as similar. Zdorab (in the homecoming series) has no other gay people to be with, and cannot really be part of the community without marrying and reproducing. He tells his wife he had to fantasize about something else in order to impregnate her. /SPOILER Anton didn't seem as real to me- probably due to my self-consciousness about the gay marriage issue and how this character would "play with the audience." But I've known women who mainly wanted to get married in order to have children. What makes it so unlikely that a gay man would? I actually know a lof of guys with a stronger will to raise children than to be sexually fulfilled. It's not like anyone really achieves sexual fulfillment anyway, that's like being chocolately fulfilled.
quote: In October of that year [1983], a new contract for the Alvin Maker "trilogy" (now up to 6 books) allowed him to return to freelancing.
Wow, I didn't realize that. If it weren't for Alvin Maker, we probably wouldn't have about 30 other OSC works.
[ June 01, 2006, 07:38 AM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Card has made reference to having lost 95 pounds without dieting, and nevertheless recently refers to his "over-abundant belly".
Neither of these disproves the other.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Which makes it a very important piece of information. I assumed someone included it to cast an aspersion on his character.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Weren't we discussing the picture in at least 3 threads before that? I was warning him about his lecturing.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Before this*
My grammar is apparently not native, I can't blurt it out when I'm 80% asleep.
Chag Sameach, all ye Jews!
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: In the fall of 2005, Card also launched Orson Scott Card's Intergalactic Medicine Show ([1]). He edited the first two issues, but found that the demands of teaching, writing, and directing plays for his local church theatre group made it impossible to respond to writers' submissions in a timely manner; former Card student and experienced freelance writer and editor Edmund Schubert became the new editor as of 1 June 2006.
Ahhh, a reference to IGMS with today's date...
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
The new entry is quite informative. It even mentions the new editor for the IGMS who apparently grabbed the reigns today.
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
You don't grab reins at IGMS. You grab piles of manuscripts and start reading them, meanwhile absorbing the psychic whines of the authors whose submissions have gone unattended for an unconscionable length of time.
Christmas at Battle School will be PUBLISHED after Shadow of the Giant, but it takes place before Ender's Game. Or rather, just before Ender arrives there, but when other characters known from that book (Dink Meeker, most notably) are already there.
Those who have weight problems would hardly think that my weight loss of 95 pounds (actually, it got to 100 pounds on that one stretch) would discredit me! I talk about it quite freely; I'm not distressed that it is mentioned on Wikipedia. It explains why I never look like any picture of me - I'm always at different points in the weight cycle.
I COULD have made that reference more accurate and tracked the weight loss patterns to exhaustive detail: 1971, 230 lbs. 1973, 176 lbs. 1979, 283 lbs. 1981, 185 lbs. 1997, 310 lbs. 1999, 210 lbs. (that's the the "95 lbs without dieting" referred to in Wikipedia) 2005, 273 lbs. Present day, 235 lbs. and falling. But who, besides me and the people who sell me clothing, actually cares? <grin> I have the body I have; I do what I can to keep it healthy.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
We care! A healthy OSC means longer life and more energy which means more great stories for all of us.
Long live the Card!
We don’t have that head thing from Wyrms yet…. Or we wouldn’t have to worry as much about getting all the completed works. Though if I’m remembering right the head thing was more like a hard drive. Not really any new thinking or experiences going on. Dang…. All good plans.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Indeed, I struggle a lot with my weight. That's probably why I was so horrified to see it in there.
There is that Malpractice story treatment at Taleswapper.net about people grafting the organs of a great man into recipients in order to artificially resurrect him. Or are they all grafted into one donor?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orson Scott Card: I went into the wikipedia stuff about me and fiddled, adding some information about my career and correcting small errors of fact and clarifying places where the original writers leapt to their own conclusions not based on what I said. Where they reported what OTHER people say about me, I left those bits alone, of course - I only corrected spots where they summarized my statements, beliefs, or actions inaccurately. I believe in the kind of thing wikipedia does, so I would not want to meddle with it to bend it in my favor; what I was pleased with, actually, was how fair the consensus process of wikipedia turned out to be. I hadn't read it till now, precisely because I assumed it would have been mostly written or edited by those determined to believe that I'm the devil.
This is against Wikipedia policy Scott, no primary source material allowed on Wikipedia. Your not allowed to enter new information about yourself, even if its true.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Um, either a winky is in order or I will have to point out your spelling and punctuation errors. Or are they usage errors if it is a word but in the wrong place?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:This is against Wikipedia policy Scott, no primary source material allowed on Wikipedia. Your not allowed to enter new information about yourself, even if its true.
If he cited the statements being referred to, it seems to be within the policy described on Wiki's NPOV page.
Can you cite the specific policy that states one can't post information about oneself? If it's in there, it's not readily apparent.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Orson Scott Card: I went into the wikipedia stuff about me and fiddled, adding some information about my career and correcting small errors of fact and clarifying places where the original writers leapt to their own conclusions not based on what I said. Where they reported what OTHER people say about me, I left those bits alone, of course - I only corrected spots where they summarized my statements, beliefs, or actions inaccurately. I believe in the kind of thing wikipedia does, so I would not want to meddle with it to bend it in my favor; what I was pleased with, actually, was how fair the consensus process of wikipedia turned out to be. I hadn't read it till now, precisely because I assumed it would have been mostly written or edited by those determined to believe that I'm the devil.
This is against Wikipedia policy Scott, no primary source material allowed on Wikipedia. Your not allowed to enter new information about yourself, even if its true.
Basically it seems that they strongly discourage people writing their own articles because of their push for the Neutral Point of View.
But they said they're fine with people editing an entry made of them to update things outdated or fix minor inaccuracies. OSC was perfectly in bounds.
Posted by Reaverdrop (Member # 9472) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vadon:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Orson Scott Card: I went into the wikipedia stuff about me and fiddled, adding some information about my career and correcting small errors of fact and clarifying places where the original writers leapt to their own conclusions...
This is against Wikipedia policy Scott, no primary source material allowed on Wikipedia. Your not allowed to enter new information about yourself, even if its true.
Basically it seems that they strongly discourage people writing their own articles because of their push for the Neutral Point of View.
But they said they're fine with people editing an entry made of them to update things outdated or fix minor inaccuracies. OSC was perfectly in bounds.
I agree with Card and Vadon on this; his edits benefited the accuracy of the article and did not bias its point of view, and he has hardly made a practice of tinkering with his own article. Geoffrey has made similar minor corrections on this page in the past.
Posted by Pinky (Member # 9161) on :
Originally posted by Orson Scott Card:
quote:Homosexuality is not a major theme in my work; I don't write about it obsessively (either in my fiction or in my published essays), I don't crusade about it, it isn't a "cause" of mine. It says far more about the surrounding society's obsessions that THIS theme is probably the most controversial one in my work. Apparently some people simply cannot rest with the knowledge that someone, somewhere, has an opinion that diverges from their own.
There seems to be no way to do it right. If there were no homosexual characters in your books, they'd call you homophobic or unrealistic. If there are, they accuse you of being homophobic or simply ignorant about the 'real' problems, wishes, life, whatever of homosexuals. If you were a homosexual, who creates h. characters, they'd say, that this is only YOUR point of view and that this does not apply to ALL h.s etc.
Another example: Diana Gabaldon (the "Voyager"- books) said, some people actually blamed her to glorify anorexia in one of her books. In the scene to which those people referred when they wrote to DG, Claire, one of the main characters, was finally about to meet her husband Jamie again, the great love of her life, after the odds had seperated them for 20 years. She was pretty nervous, and after all, only human. Certainly, Claire would be worried whether he still found her as attractive as when she was 26, although she was pretty sure that he still loved her. However, she wondered in a short scene (naked in front of a mirror), whether she had gained weight, and she was relieved not to have changed so much in two decades. (In addition to that, she was even kinda proud of her still-round butt. )
I really don't understand people who don't seem to READ novels, but rather check them hopefully for things which could be offending. Do they really ask for novels in which every single maybe-controversial thing is censored?
Posted by Mazer (Member # 192) on :
quote: Card identifies himself as a Democrat, which he asserts is because he is pro-gun control/anti-NRA, is highly critical of free-market capitalism, and believes the Republican party in the South continues to tolerate racism.
Is this true? I am surprised if it is, I had thought OSC was more pro-freedom than that. That is an opinion I associate more with the ivory-tower leftists that he ocaisionally castigates.
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
You can have my freedom when you pry it from my cold, dead...hmm. Wait a sec.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
OSC is a Democrat, you know.
:sigh: I registered Republican when I got my driver's license yesterday. I was unaffiliated in Utah but now I live in a "blue" state (Maryland.) But I basically see the NRA as nearly as bad as Planned Parenthood, in being this extremist flashpoint that the respective parties use to scare people into donating.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:But I basically see the NRA as nearly as bad as Planned Parenthood
*Runs away flailing arms and screaming*
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
If those damn Ivory-tower leftist élitist tree-hugging gay-loving Mexican-loving commies get their way, you won't have any arms to flail. Shall I put you down for a donation to the NRA's arm-a-fœtus campaign?
Posted by Mazer (Member # 192) on :
I am curious what the NRA does that is so bad, (I as a pro 2a RKBA person have my own gripes with them.)
As for OSC being a Democrat, I consider myself a liberal, and I am not a Republican by a long shot, but that has no bearing on my 2a opinions. And any Democrat who is an ardent supporter of Bush and a detractor of Clinton is certainly not a textbook Dem.
quote:If those damn Ivory-tower leftist élitist tree-hugging gay-loving Mexican-loving commies get their way, you won't have any arms to flail. Shall I put you down for a donation to the NRA's arm-a-fœtus campaign?
I am curious what this comment was supposed to accomplish.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
If it was supposed to accomplish making me chortle, well done sir! Ah, humor, so hit or miss...
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
It accomplished laughter from me. Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
Wait, what is the problem with the NRA?
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Well, objectively, it is a massive special interest group that uses its money to bribe- I mean, finance- politicians into voting a certain way, which is never a good thing.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
The hotel I work at hosted the national NRA conference last year. I got to check in R. Lee Ermey (drill seargent in Full Metal Jacket). That is one good thing about the NRA.
Posted by Kit the Odd (Member # 4975) on :
I tend to be anti-gun-control, or at least pro-gun-ownership. I think the NRA is a great organization for teaching about the responsible use of firearms. Unfortunately they seem more and more rabid in the political scene. They probaly feel they need to be to counter that rabid gun-haters, but it still unfortunate to see.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Yes, and Planned Parenthood's main income is from birth control pills and not abortions. No one can get by in life being 100% evil all the time. It's just too exhausting.
Actually, I do believe both groups are made up of well-intentioned people. Most of my personal service at this time goes to a 12 step organization for codependency, overeating, and any other problems that people can't seem to give up. I've very aware there are people who consider 12 step "evil".
My day job is apparently hijacking threads.
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
You know, Orson, I think you oughtta shave off that little goatee/beard thing. It doesn't suit you. Really.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Posted by Mazer (Member # 192) on :
I think his goat looks fine. I bet what Mrs. Card thinks about it is a bit more important than what his readers think, though.
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
are you a veterinarian? how can you tell if his goat is fine?
Posted by Mazer (Member # 192) on :
har har
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Can you cite the specific policy that states one can't post information about oneself? If it's in there, it's not readily apparent.
I said that one cannot enter "new" information about oneself. This is primary source material or original research which are not allowed. Entering info about oneself based on third party data is doubtless an ethical violation as well, but I don't know for certain that it is against the rules. Still, new info IS against the rules.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Entering info about oneself based on third party data is doubtless an ethical violation as well
"Doubtless"? There seem to be at least three people that doubt it.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Can you cite the specific policy that states one can't post information about oneself? If it's in there, it's not readily apparent.
I said that one cannot enter "new" information about oneself. This is primary source material or original research which are not allowed. Entering info about oneself based on third party data is doubtless an ethical violation as well, but I don't know for certain that it is against the rules. Still, new info IS against the rules.
I think you might be confused on what counts as new information on Wikipedia.
New is where it is the first time it has ever been posted anywhere. Thus making the Wiki a primary source. They don't want that, they want people to put information into Wikis that have already been published elsewhere.
Everything OSC posted or changed you would be able to find in biographies of him. Furthermore, the things you might not be able to find (The clarifications) were still in bounds on their policy.
What would be against their rules is if he started glorifying his position by saying he should be the divine monarch of the world for all his opinions are correct, or if he made his Wiki a primary source by announcing something for the first time.
Edit: And because I think this link is still valid where they give the guidelines on what someone can post in their own wiki. Link Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
My general distaste for wikipedia continues to grow, when the only thing I ever appreciated about it (OSC's right to correct his own stuff) is called unethical.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I would note that the Wiki is not to blame for what Orincoro thinks about it.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
But the people who think it is superior to Britannica do so because of the immediacy from commmunity editing, right? Or do they just think the content is empirically better?
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:But the people who think it is superior to Britannica do so because of the immediacy from commmunity editing, right? Or do they just think the content is empirically better?
Well for one thing it has a much much much broader range of content than Britanica does. For example, you'd never find the articles on MU*s in Britanica that you find in Wikipedia, or all the articles about the Buffyverse (the darn thing has an article for every little Buffyverse creation ever). Basically a whole lot of extra isoteric knowledge makes it into Wikipedia that I can't ever imagine making it into a more official encyclopedia.
quote:I would note that the Wiki is not to blame for what Orincoro thinks about it.
I second that. Orincoro has proven himself to be rather... hmm... virulently opinionated in threads in that past and posited his opinion as fact. So don't blame the Wiki Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I don't know what an MU*s is. Also, the allowance of Buffyverse articles is the sort of inclusion that makes me gape that there could be anything that is not allowed. For the one thing isn't allowed to be "primary source information" just turns me off.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alcon:
quote:I would note that the Wiki is not to blame for what Orincoro thinks about it.
I second that. Orincoro has proven himself to be rather... hmm... virulently opinionated in threads in that past and posited his opinion as fact. So don't blame the Wiki
Because that isn't what your doing here? hmmm. I merely pointed out what I thought was a problem and thus invited others to do the actual research. If you feel satisfied with the general consensus- then what is your problem with me?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: Basically a whole lot of extra isoteric knowledge makes it into Wikipedia that I can't ever imagine making it into a more official encyclopedia.
IF you see that as a positive. Myself, I could rather do without some of the thoroughness of wikipedia if it could be more thoughtfully edited. Although it does get constant editing, this can be a detriment as well, and it is by nature a little haphazard in design.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
For what you are describing, I think Wikipedia might be more valuable as an index of links without additional text in between, if the point is to only provide information that is already known. In the case where information is not available on the internet, people could host quotations the way they have to get pictures quoted.
[ June 12, 2006, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: But the people who think it is superior to Britannica do so because of the immediacy from commmunity editing, right? Or do they just think the content is empirically better?
I do not see any possible relevance of this to your original statement that I responded to :
quote:My general distaste for wikipedia continues to grow, when the only thing I ever appreciated about it (OSC's right to correct his own stuff) is called unethical.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
KoM, what is ethically sound about a wiki which claims to be of nuetral viewpoint, but allows people to contribute to articles about themselves? With the best will in the world I can't imagine how you could reconcile that. I understand he may be merely entering empirical data in this case, but the door is open for him to make significant changes to the article which could change the way it portrays him. You shouldn't be able to do that IMO, and I thought, and still think, that changing your own article is unethical.
Finally, of course OSC has the ability to do alot of things I don't agree with, but if I were in a similar position, I would simply stay away.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I thought, and still think, that changing your own article is unethical.
It's specifically allowed. It's been linked for you already.
Posted by ThePersonMan (Member # 9440) on :
Wikipedia user Fennec is at fault for uploading the bad image, although since anyone can edit it, we all should take some blame
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:I thought, and still think, that changing your own article is unethical.
It's specifically allowed. It's been linked for you already.
We've been over similar distinctions before Dag, my original point is of course refuted, but this above remains my personal opinion. You know how you can disagree with the rules sometimes? That's what this turns out to be.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
If OSC were to input false data or POV opinions about himself, somebody else would edit it. This is precisely the same as would happen if anyone else entered false data about OSC. I don't see the problem.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:I thought, and still think, that changing your own article is unethical.
It's specifically allowed. It's been linked for you already.
We've been over similar distinctions before Dag, my original point is of course refuted, but this above remains my personal opinion. You know how you can disagree with the rules sometimes? That's what this turns out to be.
You know how others can disagree with your opinion, sometimes? That's what this turns out to be.
It's a strange definition of unethical when someone not only follows the rules but states plainly and unequivocally what he has done when anonymity was easily had. Calling something someone did unethical when the case for any ethical lapse is so shoddy practically cries out for a response.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:KoM, what is ethically sound about a wiki which claims to be of nuetral viewpoint, but allows people to contribute to articles about themselves?
You make the assumption that a person can't be neutral about themselves. Which just ain't true.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Well, it's as likely as a Wiki being compiled by various types of humans balancing out to neutral. Is neutral an empirical quality, or simply the mean, mode, or average of what people happen to think?
Being me, I would side with the empirical dealy. But I'm an extremist/absolutist/idealist type of a persona, I'll grant.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I could never be neutral about myself- I know that. Even the information I might provide about myself would necessarily be tinged by my desire to be percieved a certain way. Short of say, a form with a bunch of relevant dates to fill in correctly, I doubt I could be completely objective, nor would I care to be so. There is also this quality to it that could easily make me obsess over the content all the time, so I just wouldn't mess with an entry about myself, probably no matter what.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: You know how others can disagree with your opinion, sometimes? That's what this turns out to be.
I didn't know you knew about this kind of situation Dag, clearly my saying that I am wrong is not good enough for you. If you weren't too busy being snide, you would notice that I did concede that I was incorrect. Then I gave my opinion on the subject, and that's it. What more do you want, other than the last word (which will be yours if you'd like it)?
Posted by Sartorius (Member # 7696) on :
So...what picture was up before? This whole thread is telling me not to think about pink elephants.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
Wiki-History is handy. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: You know how others can disagree with your opinion, sometimes? That's what this turns out to be.
I didn't know you knew about this kind of situation Dag, clearly my saying that I am wrong is not good enough for you. If you weren't too busy being snide, you would notice that I did concede that I was incorrect. Then I gave my opinion on the subject, and that's it. What more do you want, other than the last word (which will be yours if you'd like it)?
I'm totally at a loss as to what your complaint is. Any "snideness" in that post is pretty much an exact echo of your words. I'm sorry you think you're wording is too snide.
You called something unethical. I disagreed and gave reasons why I thought this wasn't so.
Apparently, my wanting to express my opinion isn't a good enough reason to post. No, Orincoro has stated that it must be because I want the last word.
I don't care about you admitting that your wrong. I do care about discussing the strange statement of ethics under discussion.
I don't know what the hell your problem is with me, but stop thinking you have any insight into my motivations at all. It's abundantly clear that any insight you do have is wrong.
quote:I could never be neutral about myself- I know that. Even the information I might provide about myself would necessarily be tinged by my desire to be percieved a certain way. Short of say, a form with a bunch of relevant dates to fill in correctly, I doubt I could be completely objective, nor would I care to be so. There is also this quality to it that could easily make me obsess over the content all the time, so I just wouldn't mess with an entry about myself, probably no matter what.
Your abilities and predilections are not sound bases for ethical principles.
OSC acted publicly. Public avowal of ones actions when anonymity is otherwise guaranteed is often a sign of lack of bad intent.
OSC acted in accordance with the rules of the site. While you might consider the rules to be incorrect, that in and of itself is not enough to make obeying them unethical.
The changes OSC made were not only visible but could undone by two mouse clicks. This means that the potential harm done by what he did is easily correctable. Not only does this in and of itself lessen the likelihood of the behavior being unethical, it is the reason for the rules (showing the underlying ethical basis of the rules) and is made a more potent corrective measure by OSC's public statement of what he did.
The point here isn't that you disagree with the rules Wikipedia has chosen to operate under. You called OSC's actions unethical ("I thought, and still think, that changing your own article is unethical").
That's not a statement about whether the rules should be changed. That's a statement about what someone did (making it general doesn't change that) in accordance with the rules.
Therefore, what the rules are is totally relevant (not determinative, but relevant) to deciding whether the act of changing one's own article is unethical.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:I could never be neutral about myself- I know that. Even the information I might provide about myself would necessarily be tinged by my desire to be percieved a certain way.
I, on the other hand, go to great lengths to be neutral about my self. I don't know how common that is, but a wiki about me by me would be pretty accurate.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
I'm curious when you claim that you could "never be neutral about (yourself)"
If you think about what OSC did change about the article, primarily factual information regarding his past. and supposition of what he intended.
At least as far as the first goes, how can you not be neutral about yourself without being blatantly unethical (lying). Updating (or even posting for the first time) what my work history was, or what awards I may or may not have recieved can hardly be anything but neutral unless you are flat-out-lying.
As for adjusting "what you meant" by certain works I can only think of it as a method of removing libel.
i.e. if someone posted that I was a nazi for having done/posted something, I would see nothing wrong in correcting that false belief.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
And there goes the Godwin's Law.
Posted by Mazer (Member # 192) on :
Not really. That was just an incidental mention of "Nazi", not an accusation.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: Card has also announced a 'Christmas in Battle School' book, a book that connects the "Shadow" series and "Speaker" series together, and a book that takes place after Shadow of the Giant and before Card's short story "Investment Counselor". Furthermore, Card recently announced that Ender's Game will soon be made into a movie (see Ender's Game (film)).
You know, the way that is worded, it almost reads (first time quick over) like the phrase "a book that takes place after Shadow of the Giant and before Card's Investment Counselor" is describing the previous "Christmas in Battle School" book -- instead of being a second book in a list of three.
Or is it just me? I would hate for people to misinterpret that.
FG
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
I agree Farmgirl
and if you guys don't want any questions about Godwin's law I can switch that up, "nazi" was just convenient to use there =p
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
OSC has every right to correct his stuff, the rules meerly state that it would not be advisable, although it is not strictly prohibited, to create an artical about oneself. Wikipedia has an important rule which states that any rules that interfer with the ability of an editor to make the project better should be ignored. That is why Wikipedia is special and works. Ironicly, the anarchist spin-off of wikipedia has much stricter rules.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
It would be funnier, Grimace, if you used something no one actually is. Some find the mention of Nazis distasteful because it is so out there, like calling someone the Anti-Christ. But since I believe there are many Anti-Christs, I don't find it to be hyperbole.
Posted by docmgmt (Member # 9542) on :
Hello, all. I'm not really a contributor to this forum, though I have enjoyed many of Card's novels, and I really like reading through his Reviews of Everything and reading his Online Writing Lessons. And... I occasionally like browsing through Ornery.org.
Anyways, I popped into hatrack yesterday, and saw the other post about the OSC Wiki, and took a look at the Wikipedia article. To me, the "Personal Views" section on the wikipedia article doesn't belong on wikipedia.
I believe it violates the Wikipedia policy of maintaining a Neutral Point of View. It also violates the Wikipedia policy of No Original Research.
At any rate, I've nominated that section for removal. I didn't want to just be bold and remove it, I thought there should be a discussion first.
Hm. As far as I can tell, the "Personal Views" section is perfectly within Wikipedia guidelines.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
There is nothing POV about stating that someone believes something when they themselves have said so. I am confused how this even came up.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
The "Personal Views" thing was there before, I believe. I would tend to agree that it doesn't belong, but OSC wasn't the one who started it. It does raise the question of what constitutes a personal view as opposed to a religious or political one. I guess his opinion on why homosexuality occurs and what harm comes of it are his personal opinions and not those of a religious or political body with which he identifies.
I believe OSC has said before that his personal views are very important to him, but I feel bad for any fans who find OSC's personal views to be more important than their own. It's the nature of a personal view. But then, I have been known to get really upset about his opinion of "You've Got Mail". So I'm not immune.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
I don't think you quite understand what neutrality means.
Posted by CRash (Member # 7754) on :
quote:I believe it violates the Wikipedia policy of maintaining a Neutral Point of View. It also violates the Wikipedia policy of No Original Research.
At any rate, I've nominated that section for removal. I didn't want to just be bold and remove it, I thought there should be a discussion first.
Neutrality towards the subject is entirely different from the subject's views being neutral or not, if you catch my drift. I also disagree with it being "original research". I think it doesn't violate the wikipedia policies, and is fine to remain part of the article--OSC's beliefs are a large part of what he writes and who he is, and I don't think the article would be complete if the entire section was eliminated. Parts of it, perhaps. I'm glad you opened it up for discussion.
Posted by docmgmt (Member # 9542) on :
Please excuse me for saying this directly on OSC's forum, but I didn't realize beforehand that OSC's viewpoints and opinions were particularly "notable." To me, his published fiction makes him notable, and what makes him famous. His opinions and essays are interesting to read but I didn't realize the extent of fame that was attached to them.
However, I now realize that a lot of people have interest in his controversial opinions, in which case it makes sense to have a neutral writeup of them. Since I flagged the section for removal, I'll wait a few days to see if there's any other points raised on the discussion page, and then take down the flag.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
What? This makes no sense. Its part of telling what he does in his career. Of telling who he is. You mean to tell me that on a politicians section here you don’t put some of their view point? You’re making the mistake of pigeon holing OSC to Sci-fi writer when he does so much more.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Originally posted by Primal Curve: I don't think you quite understand what neutrality means.
And I'm not sure who you mean by "you". I guess I should read back over my posts to cover my posterior, but I find the whole concept of Wiki striving for neutrality to be as improbable as OSC editing his own article with a neutral result. Well, actually, I think OSC would stand a better chance of giving a neutral result.
But then, my very first encounter with Wiki is to blame for that and not the events tracked by this thread.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Yeah, if you mean the one with capital letters where they belong. I'm pretty sure anyone who tried to register a user name impersonating him would be banished to the isle of perpetual tickling.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by cmc: i don’t ascribe 'capital letters' unless they're required.
Capital letters, in the English language, are required for the first letter of a sentence and for proper nouns (e.g. names). So, if you want to refer to Orson Scott Card by his name, I'd recommend using capital letters.
As to pooka, you're being paranoid as usual. I was referring to our little Wikipedia friend, here.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
He wasn't being either arrogant or rude, and he did answer your question.
The culture of this forum is such that we tend to value proper English with proper punctuation, grammar, spelling, and such. We don't demand perfection, and honestly, no one's going to care if you have some mistakes, but you will likely find that those who make an effort at using proper English get more respect from others.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Not only that, but your posts will get read.
That is the idea, right, for people to actually read what you write? Then I'd start up an exercise program, build up that pinky strength to help you stretch all the way over to the 'shift' key. Start with just a few reps a day, then build up to about a hundred. Take it slow; don't try to be a hero. It's hard initially, but you gotta push through.
Now that's sarcastic. Maybe rude, too.
Posted by Jeesh (Member # 9163) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: build up that pinky strength to help you stretch all the way over to the 'shift' key.
I use Caps Lock. I'm just different that way.
Posted by 777 (Member # 9506) on :
No, Wikipedia, no!
Someone decided to switch back to that particular humiliating picture of him that opened this discussion.
Somebody change it, quick!
Posted by hbdragon88 (Member # 9594) on :
I'm sorry, but Wikipedia has its policies. We could certainly use a publicity shot, such as in the case of Bob Ross when there is no free shot of him available. But "noncommercial use only" was banned over a year ago. It is also policy that a fair use image cannot override a free one. The free one adequately conveys Card, even if it is an image of his eyes closed. Now, if the photographer was willing to relicense it freely, Wikipedia would happily accept the image.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
What if I draw a picture of him and submit it? Are avatars generated through Karaoke Revolution Party copyrighted?
I've also thought of an excellent scheme to scroll toward member number 10K by getting the royal "we" of Wikipedia to keep registering here to make single replies.
Posted by hbdragon88 (Member # 9594) on :
Yeah, well, I felt compelled to get my voice heard. *removes links to this forum on WP* And if you draw a picture, I wouldn't see a problem there, as long as it was as good or better as the free picture currently on the article now.
Posted by cmc (Member # 9549) on :
Wait - What, hbdragon88? Please expound on your post? I don't get what you're saying at ALL.
Posted by cmc (Member # 9549) on :
ps - How is it that you decide what is 'as good or better as'? Just a question...
Posted by cmc (Member # 9549) on :
pps - I haven't yet verified what you said but if it's true, you're a loser. Honestly, have you NOTHING better to do with your time than worry about Wikopedia sites? If you haven't - have you read the 'Ender Series' by Orson Scott Card? It might entertain you... At the very least it’ll give you something to do with your (seemingly endless) spare time.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
cmc, as near as I can guess from the context, hbdragon is affiliated in some way with wikipedia. So, in other words, he/she may not have anything better to do. In fact, things like this may be part of their job description. Either way, I think the hostility is uncalled for.
I'm sure OSC would like to comply with wiki's policies, whether or not he agrees with them (and I haven't seen that he doesn't). After all, their house, their rules, as the saying goes.
Posted by hbdragon88 (Member # 9594) on :
Yes, thank you for making assumptions about me...yes, I have read the Ender series. Actually, to be precise, I've read the Shadow series (only Ender's Shadow was worth it, though), First Meetings, and Speaker for the Dead. Wikipedia is actually a better use of my time than what I used to do before.
The hostility is uncalled for? Well, I interpreted cmc's post that he (this forum) was interested in trying to pull Wikipedians in here, I imagine, by doing some kind of hostile act. I imagine uploading the unfree publicity shot or something as the way to get more Wikipedians to make one-post accounts. Maybe he was just jesting, I don't know, but I responded in kind...just jesting as well, I guess, right?!
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I think pooka was joking about doing something like what you suggest. I don't think cmc was, though I might be mistaken. I just didn't want to get bombarded right out of the gate.
I'm glad you're a good sport.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I might draw a picture. The Karaoke avatar was a joke, however.
Could I ask why a link to OSC's official web site is not allowed?
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
This is the first time I realized Card's birthday is a day before mine.
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
Wait, so if Mr. Card takes a picture of himself, for "free", it can be used on wikipedia?
*hint hint
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
I swear. I’ve never seen anything so ridiculous. I’m sure they’ll find something wrong with this new one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Orson.scott.card.JPG But it’s one I took myself at a book signing. Looks ok on the site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orson_Scott_Card Unreal.... Someone has way to much time on their hands to be worrying about the new pic and it’s copyright.
Posted by Dav (Member # 8217) on :
Well, it's good that his eyes are open now Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Maybe we should ask OSC (or wait until he replies here) if he likes that picture or would want something a little more professional for the page?
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
We tried to put something professional and this yahoo jerk with to much time on his hand found some crazy loop hole rule that says that one won’t work. It’s retarded.
So….. unless someone else has one that they’ve taken out there of him that looks more professional this one is certainly better since he is smiling and his eyes are open.
Posted by cmc (Member # 9549) on :
FWIW - I like the pic up there... It's 'real'.
Posted by hbdragon88 (Member # 9594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jay: We tried to put something professional and this yahoo jerk with to much time on his hand found some crazy loop hole rule that says that one won’t work. It’s retarded.
Oh, come on now...it's called Wikipedia, the free encylcopedia. If you were Jimmy Wales, and you had your choice of a free image or an unfree one, which one would you choose? In the interest of trying to be as free as possible, he'd choose the free one. He would only choose the unfree one if he had no choice (such as a historical event that wouldn't convey the same information). OSC is a living person, and therefore it should be easy to find a free image of him, which you did, and which I thank you for.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Dude… It was free. We had the photographer say use it. We had the person who it was a picture of say use it. The only person in the world who had a problem with it was you. And for you to say the one with his eyes closed conveys OSC adequately is beyond retarded. Everyone knew that was a horrible picture. The new one I put up works, but it’s not as professional as the one that you didn’t like. So fine. We’re completely in your rules now and maybe someone out there can take a picture of OSC in a more professional manner and then we can get one up.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If you were Jimmy Wales, and you had your choice of a free image or an unfree one, which one would you choose? In the interest of trying to be as free as possible, he'd choose the free one.
Five bucks says if you asked Jimmy Wales, he'd say it'd be okay to use the other photograph.
Posted by hbdragon88 (Member # 9594) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:If you were Jimmy Wales, and you had your choice of a free image or an unfree one, which one would you choose? In the interest of trying to be as free as possible, he'd choose the free one.
Five bucks says if you asked Jimmy Wales, he'd say it'd be okay to use the other photograph.
He has already spoken about it (not specifcially about OSC, but about them in general). See Non-commercial and by permission banned mailing list message.
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
quote:Originally posted by Primal Curve: This is the first time I realized Card's birthday is a day before mine.
This is the first time I've realized your birthday is the same as one of my really really good friend's. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Maybe we should ask OSC (or wait until he replies here) if he likes that picture or would want something a little more professional for the page?
Umm, have you read any other parts of this thread? I suppose I could scan back and see if you've posted. But I'm not feeling well. People purporting to represent wikipedia have essentially told Card to keep his hands off the entry. Wiki is the man, and I mean that in the "allied with the devil" sense and not the "gets me hot" sense. There is a difference.
Oh, I like that picture, Jay. If its the one with him gleefully snuggling what appears to be a man (Max von Sydow?) placidly looking the other way.
What's the policy on extranous people appearing in a picture (assuming all those pictured gave permission to be included?). Because there was a great mass headsquish picture from the Magic Street tour.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I assumed someone included it to cast an aspersion on his character.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I am surprised if it is, I had thought OSC was more pro-freedom than that. That is an opinion I associate more with the ivory-tower leftists that he ocaisionally castigates.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)