posted
You know, Orson, I think you oughtta shave off that little goatee/beard thing. It doesn't suit you. Really.
Posts: 1735 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 186 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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. LinkPosts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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 Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wikipedia user Fennec is at fault for uploading the bad image, although since anyone can edit it, we all should take some blame
Posts: 53 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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)?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So...what picture was up before? This whole thread is telling me not to think about pink elephants.
Posts: 152 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
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
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
Hm. As far as I can tell, the "Personal Views" section is perfectly within Wikipedia guidelines.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is nothing POV about stating that someone believes something when they themselves have said so. I am confused how this even came up.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 973 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
