|
Post by feelfree222 on Apr 30, 2007 0:38:40 GMT -4
From the very same section, two paragraphes down. It would seem more like Wikipedia is just following the trend of taking the Western name rendering instead of the Korean. And don't you think it's a bit paranoid to say Wikipedia is trying to fool readers by switching names around in a way that is perfectly well explained? Strangely the edit came after the publication of the picture of the two guys with the US marines uniforms.That photo was retired from wikipedia. See the debate here. tinyurl.com/yqylfc
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Apr 30, 2007 0:42:18 GMT -4
It sounds very much like you are straining at a gnat, Feelfree. Arguing which side people are on in a photo? Whether his family or given name should come first? The man's given name was Seung-Hui and his family name was Cho. He was never a US Marine. The photo is either not Cho (my first pick since his family name isn't "Hu" and that's what's on the uniform) or it is Cho's face photo-shopped onto someone else with the mistaken name "Hu" used on the uniform, or it may actually be Cho wearing fatigues for the "fun" of it. No matter which version you buy it's still not evidence that he was a mind controled slave. It matters to see why Wikipedia have retired the picture shortly after the publication.That is the point in question. debate tinyurl.com/yqylfc
|
|
JMV
Venus
Posts: 41
|
Post by JMV on Apr 30, 2007 0:46:23 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Apr 30, 2007 0:55:35 GMT -4
It matters to see why Wikipedia have retired the picture shortly after the publication.That is the point in question. Because they strive to have accurate information on their site and realized that it wasn't really Cho in the image? What would be the point in including an image of someone else? His family name is Cho, this is not disputable. The order used by the police or media does not change this. It's time for you to accept the fact that the image is not of Cho and therefore does not support the claim that he was in the military.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Apr 30, 2007 0:58:51 GMT -4
It matters to see why Wikipedia have retired the picture shortly after the publication.That is the point in question. Because they strive to have accurate information on their site and realized that it wasn't really Cho in the image? What would be the point in including an image of someone else? His family name is Cho, this is not disputable. The order used by the police or media does not change this. It's time for you to accept the fact that the image is not of Cho and therefore does not support the claim that he was in the military. Well thats right that image was probably a joke.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Apr 30, 2007 7:45:09 GMT -4
It matters to see why Wikipedia have retired the picture shortly after the publication.That is the point in question. Because it was Wiki-vandalism. This is a prime example of the CT mindset at work. Someone puts a photo of a man who has asiatic features but whose face is mostly covered, wearing a US Marine uniform (on which their name is clearly displayed) on a WikiPedia page, claiming it is the subject of that page. That picture is removed, because it is not, in fact, the person in question. The CT's first instinct isn't "was that actually a picture of the person in question?", but "Cover-up!"
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 30, 2007 11:28:56 GMT -4
Well this may suprise you FeelFree, but Wikipedia is not really a good source of accurate information, especially on controversial subjects like recent mass murders. It's pretty handy if you want a quick idea of who a comic book character is, but if you're doing serious research then Wikipedia is at best a good starting point and link site.
|
|
|
Post by wingerii on Apr 30, 2007 12:22:23 GMT -4
Well this may suprise you FeelFree, but Wikipedia is not really a good source of accurate information, especially on controversial subjects like recent mass murders. It's pretty handy if you want a quick idea of who a comic book character is, but if you're doing serious research then Wikipedia is at best a good starting point and link site. You'd be surprised at how many teachers and profs (never mind students) I've run into that don't know this.
|
|
|
Post by SpitfireIX on Apr 30, 2007 14:00:07 GMT -4
You'd be surprised at how many teachers and profs (never mind students) I've run into that don't know this.
Yesterday I was helping my friend's daughter with a science project, and I printed off a Wikipedia article on the subject for her to read for background, but I'm going to make sure she doesn't cite it as a source.
I sometimes quote from Wikipedia in my posts (it has the advantage of being free and non-copyrighted), but only if I'm already sure the quoted information is accurate.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Apr 30, 2007 17:07:15 GMT -4
When I was explaining some of the finer details of my bipolar disorder to someone, I first read the Wiki article for myself before referring the person to it. I stood a better chance of not having to reinstruct the person that way--if I'd seen it to be substantially wrong, I'd've sent him somewhere else. (Probably to a library.) Even the mostly-accurate bipolar disorder article had some pretty irritating flaws, though. (Including an implied belief that people can just sort of stop needing meds if they keep a positive outlook. I hate that.)
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Apr 30, 2007 17:56:14 GMT -4
Including an implied belief that people can just sort of stop needing meds if they keep a positive outlook. I hate thatTom Cruise would tell you that you just need a good auditing.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Apr 30, 2007 18:00:24 GMT -4
I tend to be of the opinion that fewer people actually need medication than think they need it (that is, that things like bi-polar disorder and ADD are somewhat over-diagnosed), but that some definitely do need it.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Apr 30, 2007 20:38:06 GMT -4
Fewer. But yes--there are lots of incorrectly-diagnosed people. However, few of those are diagnosed bipolar; these days, it takes a lot to get diagnosed bipolar. They diagnose with straight depression a little too easily, though. It makes things worse for those of us who are mentally ill.
|
|