User talk:Switpi84: Difference between revisions
Orangemike (talk | contribs) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I am a little amazed at the removal of the information about my relation to blogging history. Contrary to article? I wrote a phd on the topic, <ref>{{cite web |url= http://forests.org/includes/phd.htm |title=Global Forests and the Internet: Assessing the Reach and Usefulness of the Forest Conservation Portal |last=Barry|first=Glen|publisher=University of Wisconsin Ph.D.|date=2003-12-08|accessdate=2008-09-13}}</ref>. which was referenced and is online. And provided a link to demonstrate that have provided blog content on the [http://forests.org/archived_site/today/recent95.html web continuously since Jan. 1995]. I know of no other blog prior to this that was political in nature and not merely a diary. If something is truthful and factual, as well as documented with a dissertation and the actual product is still online, and happens to be self-promotional, well so be it. If you don't like the wording, change it. But to see claims that blogging was invented in 1997 (as claimed by Economist article) when I still run a web page with blog content from 1995 (and earlier via gopher sinc 1993 and email since 1989) is the honest truth of the matter. Because I work outside of the Internet community that does this for the technical thrill, and have used these tools for actual social good should not disqualify me. I can refer you to dozens of people that have followed this work for decades from both academia and the environmental world. I believe this content was removed because of someone against my environmental activism on libertarian grounds, and not because it was not historically accurate. Does anyone dispute that I have blogged since 1995 and they are still online and I got a phd for writing about it?[[User:Switpi84|Switpi84]] ([[User talk:Switpi84#top|talk]]) 00:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC) |
I am a little amazed at the removal of the information about my relation to blogging history. Contrary to article? I wrote a phd on the topic, <ref>{{cite web |url= http://forests.org/includes/phd.htm |title=Global Forests and the Internet: Assessing the Reach and Usefulness of the Forest Conservation Portal |last=Barry|first=Glen|publisher=University of Wisconsin Ph.D.|date=2003-12-08|accessdate=2008-09-13}}</ref>. which was referenced and is online. And provided a link to demonstrate that have provided blog content on the [http://forests.org/archived_site/today/recent95.html web continuously since Jan. 1995]. I know of no other blog prior to this that was political in nature and not merely a diary. If something is truthful and factual, as well as documented with a dissertation and the actual product is still online, and happens to be self-promotional, well so be it. If you don't like the wording, change it. But to see claims that blogging was invented in 1997 (as claimed by Economist article) when I still run a web page with blog content from 1995 (and earlier via gopher sinc 1993 and email since 1989) is the honest truth of the matter. Because I work outside of the Internet community that does this for the technical thrill, and have used these tools for actual social good should not disqualify me. I can refer you to dozens of people that have followed this work for decades from both academia and the environmental world. I believe this content was removed because of someone against my environmental activism on libertarian grounds, and not because it was not historically accurate. Does anyone dispute that I have blogged since 1995 and they are still online and I got a phd for writing about it?[[User:Switpi84|Switpi84]] ([[User talk:Switpi84#top|talk]]) 00:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC) |
||
:Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Self-published original research doesn't qualify. --[[User:Orangemike|<font color="darkorange">Orange Mike</font>]] | [[User talk:Orangemike|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] 01:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC) (no libertarian) |
:Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Self-published original research doesn't qualify. --[[User:Orangemike|<font color="darkorange">Orange Mike</font>]] | [[User talk:Orangemike|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] 01:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC) (no libertarian) |
||
:And the fact that the site is still on the web at its original url doesn't qualify as evidence? Go to the wayback machine, it is in there. 12 years on a PhD and an ill-researched Times article carries more weight. Is the only "evidence" applicable that someone else has written a news account?[[User:Switpi84|Switpi84]] ([[User talk:Switpi84#top|talk]]) 11:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 11:29, 22 April 2009
I am a little amazed at the removal of the information about my relation to blogging history. Contrary to article? I wrote a phd on the topic, [1]. which was referenced and is online. And provided a link to demonstrate that have provided blog content on the web continuously since Jan. 1995. I know of no other blog prior to this that was political in nature and not merely a diary. If something is truthful and factual, as well as documented with a dissertation and the actual product is still online, and happens to be self-promotional, well so be it. If you don't like the wording, change it. But to see claims that blogging was invented in 1997 (as claimed by Economist article) when I still run a web page with blog content from 1995 (and earlier via gopher sinc 1993 and email since 1989) is the honest truth of the matter. Because I work outside of the Internet community that does this for the technical thrill, and have used these tools for actual social good should not disqualify me. I can refer you to dozens of people that have followed this work for decades from both academia and the environmental world. I believe this content was removed because of someone against my environmental activism on libertarian grounds, and not because it was not historically accurate. Does anyone dispute that I have blogged since 1995 and they are still online and I got a phd for writing about it?Switpi84 (talk) 00:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Self-published original research doesn't qualify. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC) (no libertarian)
- And the fact that the site is still on the web at its original url doesn't qualify as evidence? Go to the wayback machine, it is in there. 12 years on a PhD and an ill-researched Times article carries more weight. Is the only "evidence" applicable that someone else has written a news account?Switpi84 (talk) 11:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- ^ Barry, Glen (2003-12-08). "Global Forests and the Internet: Assessing the Reach and Usefulness of the Forest Conservation Portal". University of Wisconsin Ph.D. Retrieved 2008-09-13.