I think it was very intresting and unbiased and it mentions this site and Ornery. Not a great picture, though.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 367 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 853 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Someone did change it back, but the section title change from "controversial views" makes it more tolerable to me.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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).
Posts: 367 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 367 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
... 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?
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 853 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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? Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I get the obscene version when I follow the link, but when I try to edit the page it's not there anymore...
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
*relieved* Well, however the caching works, the non-obscene version is now what comes up for me.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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 ]
Posts: 3617 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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]
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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 ]
Posts: 3617 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
.![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
