Biographies of Living Persons issue re-opened for Herbert Schildt
spinoza1111
behavior, I have taken these actions two days early.
* I have created a new Biographies of Living Persons issue concerning
the Schildt article recommending that it be removed, since Schildt is
not a public figure and the sole source of its Reception section is
NNPOV.
* I have emailed a person who has commented at my wordpress blog and
appears to be Jimmy Wales, requesting that he intervene.
James Harris
He'll be pleased to hear from you again. ;-)
James
Malcolm McLean
> the Schildt article recommending that it be removed, since Schildt is
> not a public figure and the sole source of its Reception section is
> NNPOV.
>
someone who has approved Schildt. At the moment there are three antis
(Seebs, Clive Feather and Steve Summit) and no-one in support.
However who is there to insert.
Seebs
That is, indeed, the problem -- there don't seem to be any.
Sometimes, the truthful and neutral thing to say is that everyone seems
to agree on an issue. A "neutral" report on how people feel about the KKK
is not one which balances equal numbers of pro- and con- views, but one in
which the views reported reflect the distribution of views elsewhere.
I suspect that, if we were to find a dozen or so credible anti-Schildt
sources, it would be reasonable to include a pro-Schildt source, if indeed
one can be found that has reasonable credibility or authority.
-s
--
Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet...@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
Colonel Harlan Sanders
This kind of seeking for "balance" is why creationists, say, try to
claim equal time with biologists when the issue of evolution comes up.
Anyway, you, or Nilges for that matter, are free to edit the article
and add "balance" yourself, if you can find similarly reputable
reviews that are positive to Schildt. Nilges' preferred option now,
after trying for the last three or four years to censor any criticism,
is to try to get the entire article deleted. So it seems he hasn't
been able to find anyone to endorse Schildt.
Anyway, here for instance is one compilation of book reviews by the
"Association of C and C++ Users ":
http://accu.org/index.php/book_reviews
If you search for reviews of books by Schildt, you find, in summary:
11 results where author contains 'Schildt' :
C/C++ Programmer's Reference 2ed. by Herbert Schildt
C: The Complete Reference 4ed by Herbert Schildt
C++ from the Ground Up by Herbert Schildt - Not recommended
C++ from the Ground Up (2nd ed) by Herbert Schildt - Not recommended
C/C++ Programmer's Reference by Herbert Schildt - Not recommended
Expert C++ by Herbert Schildt - Not recommended
Java Programmers Reference by Herbert Schildt&Joe O'Neil - Not
recommended
MFC Programming from the GROUND UP 2nd Ed by Herbert Schildt - Not
recommended
STL Programming from the Ground Up by Herbert Schildt - Not
recommended
Teach Yourself C++ 3ed by Herbert Schildt - Not recommended
Windows NT 4 Programming from the Ground Up by Herbert Schildt - Not
recommended
So not looking good to find "balance", it looks like Seebs has already
paid them off.
Keith Thompson
[..]
> Anyway, you, or Nilges for that matter, are free to edit the article
> and add "balance" yourself, if you can find similarly reputable
> reviews that are positive to Schildt. Nilges' preferred option now,
Nilges can't; he's been banned.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks...@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Colonel Harlan Sanders
wrote:
>Colonel Harlan Sanders <Har...@kfc.com> writes:
>[..]
>> Anyway, you, or Nilges for that matter, are free to edit the article
>> and add "balance" yourself, if you can find similarly reputable
>> reviews that are positive to Schildt. Nilges' preferred option now,
>[...]
>
>Nilges can't; he's been banned.
He can't as "Spinoza1111", but he keeps editing anonymously.
Since he vandalises the same articles over and over, he gets detected
and reverted quickly. If however he made a positive edit and didn't
rant against his enemies, it would not draw attention. That's of
course just a theoretical possibility, since he can't stop himself.
The "issue" he refers to at the head of this thread, posted from an
anoymous IP, is pretty hilarious in that respect:
comment added by 121.202.68.35
>This week (ending 11 April 2010) Seebach has written a
>new attack on the fourth edition and he has changed the
>Schildt article to reference the new attack in order to
>cover his tracks, after a considerable amount of
>criticism on comp.lang.c this year, coming from
>independent and educated sources.
>
>Under Biographies of Living Persons, wikipedia is being
>used to enable a personal campaign of malicious libel.
... and so on and on and on....