Talk:OLPC myths: Difference between revisions
FazzMunkle (talk | contribs) |
FazzMunkle (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
== Just want to advise people against personal opinion == |
== Just want to advise people against personal opinion == |
||
A few times in the added text it looked like the additions were more from personal opinion than from impartial observation. But it doesn't look like it. Nevertheless there is the possibility that from our personal belief in this program may come opinions from emotion that may color this list of myths as more propoganda than a list of missunderstandings and factual corrections. Let's keep a certain discipline when maintaining this list for future notes of mind. |
A few times in the added text it looked like the additions were more from personal opinion than from impartial observation. But it doesn't look like it. Nevertheless there is the possibility that from our personal belief in this program may come opinions from emotion that may color this list of myths as more propoganda than a list of missunderstandings and factual corrections. Let's keep a certain discipline when maintaining this list for future notes of mind. It's ok to list shortcomings as well as advantages of this project/program. After all, the honest and frank person can gain the most reverence when all is said and done. |
||
I myself have entered into this with opinions borne more out of emotion than facts, but ever since the initial entry I've strived to keep things as informational as possible with a clinical mind and vocabulary. While keeping things concise yet still getting the right information across without confusion or chance of taking things out of context by those against the project/program. It would behoove us to keep it this way. If we've made factual or judgement errors in our entries, we're all there to back each other up without feeling bad about it. :-) That's how a wiki works. heh.--[[User:FazzMunkle|FazzMunkle]] 07:14, 26 March 2006 (EST) |
I myself have entered into this with opinions borne more out of emotion than facts, but ever since the initial entry I've strived to keep things as informational as possible with a clinical mind and vocabulary. While keeping things concise yet still getting the right information across without confusion or chance of taking things out of context by those against the project/program. It would behoove us to keep it this way. If we've made factual or judgement errors in our entries, we're all there to back each other up without feeling bad about it. :-) That's how a wiki works. heh.--[[User:FazzMunkle|FazzMunkle]] 07:14, 26 March 2006 (EST) |
||
Revision as of 12:28, 26 March 2006
Just tightening up the wordings, clearing up potential misunderstandings and adding some entries
I added one more that I see a lot of. That of value judgements placed on this project simply because companies like Microsoft have come up with their own ideas.--FazzMunkle 14:21, 19 March 2006 (EST)
The recycling myth/misunderstanding entry
I figured it should be elaborated on and the original dealt with two distinct issues of recycling/disposability, one possibly answering the other. I hope I kept the original spirit of the entry.--FazzMunkle 11:21, 21 March 2006 (EST)
Elaborated on the "more harm than good" myth.
I figured some exploration on why people think this was in order.--FazzMunkle 11:44, 21 March 2006 (EST)
Just want to advise people against personal opinion
A few times in the added text it looked like the additions were more from personal opinion than from impartial observation. But it doesn't look like it. Nevertheless there is the possibility that from our personal belief in this program may come opinions from emotion that may color this list of myths as more propoganda than a list of missunderstandings and factual corrections. Let's keep a certain discipline when maintaining this list for future notes of mind. It's ok to list shortcomings as well as advantages of this project/program. After all, the honest and frank person can gain the most reverence when all is said and done.
I myself have entered into this with opinions borne more out of emotion than facts, but ever since the initial entry I've strived to keep things as informational as possible with a clinical mind and vocabulary. While keeping things concise yet still getting the right information across without confusion or chance of taking things out of context by those against the project/program. It would behoove us to keep it this way. If we've made factual or judgement errors in our entries, we're all there to back each other up without feeling bad about it. :-) That's how a wiki works. heh.--FazzMunkle 07:14, 26 March 2006 (EST)