Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wikipedia daily most viewed pages

pageviews.wmcloud.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 179 posts

Re: Wikipedia daily most viewed pages

#161

Post by OJFord »

layer8 wrote: post #142
OJFord wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only example of surgery I saw was Botox for and then removal of the saliva gland, after the mother induced drooling by applying an anaesthetic prior to the doctor's examination. So yes there's some suspicions not reported or not well followed through on by some doctors and police, but it's clearly not that cut and dry, it was quite a fraud.

The Wikipedia page also mentions that “Tubes were implanted in her ears to control her myriad purported ear infections”.

I missed that one, but my point wasn't that there was only one - it was that the mother was lying about things, doing deliberate fraudulent things to get that medical attention and treatment for the daughter.

For the ear infection, maybe she just lied that the daughter kept complaining of hot itchy ears etc., or did something to them so that she did poke and scratch them (and the doctor could see that).

Re: Wikipedia daily most viewed pages

#162

Post by AnthonyMouse »

canarypilot wrote: post #124
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worse than that. It affects the entire site. Here's an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Three_(automobile_manufact... > "GM, for instance, at one time picked up the entire cost of funding health insurance premiums of its employees, their survivors and GM retirees, as the US did not have a universal health care system ." This is an article about automakers. The reason they picked up future healthcare co…

Removing context to make a selective argument is intellectually dishonest. The article contrasts the operating environment of “Big Three” auto-manufacturers across countries. It compares manufacture costs in Germany and Japan with those in the US, and the paragraph you cite links through to a (2004) article in which it is estimated that pensions and health insurance combined add $1,784 to the cost of a car in the US.…

> Given this context it is reasonable to argue that General Motors is (or at least was in 2004) at a competitive disadvantage to manufacturers in Japan or Germany as a result of the US having no universal healthcare system.

Japanese and German carmakers also make cars in the US. The primary distinction isn't that the company has to provide healthcare, which they all do, and even if they were manufacturing in different countries they still would because someone would have to pay the taxes that pay for healthcare instead of the insurance premiums. The primary distinction is that foreign automakers have non-union shops in the South whereas domestic automakers have union shops in and around Detroit, and management discovered that promising generous future benefits is a way to placate the UAW without cutting into present-day profits, with rather deleterious consequences for the company's future.

This still has nothing to do with the healthcare system except insofar as it was a category of future benefit that could be promised. The same thing would have happened (and did) by promising future pension payments or other benefits. The proportionality of healthcare vs. pension payments and other benefits wouldn't have materially affected the result, they'd have just been promised more of something else.

Re: Wikipedia daily most viewed pages

#163

Post by s1artibartfast »

lupusreal wrote: post #94
casperb wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had the same question. Seems like the perpetrator (her daughter?) was released from prison yesterday: https://www.google.com/search?q=Dee+Dee+Blanchard&sca_esv=59...

Seems like she (daughter) planned it or at least provided the weapon, but the person who actually did it was her boyfriend and is now serving life without possibility of parole. Kind of a crazy sentence considering the 'victim' truly had it coming (tortured her daughter for years, with unnecessary surgeries, feeding tube, etc)

It turns out you can't just go and unilaterally decide to kill people.

There is a good reason people want government institutions to jealously guard this right.

The government is very fickle with giving out the death penalty.

Re: Wikipedia daily most viewed pages

#164

Post by seabass-labrax »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #137
seabass-labrax wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're on the right track here. For instance, I have no idea whether or not Brazil has a universal healthcare system, so if the article was about a company in Brazil, such a note would be relevant to me. The USA population includes approximately between a quarter and a half of the world's English speakers, depending on whether you count English as a second language or not. Therefore it's reasonable to assume…

> For instance, I have no idea whether or not Brazil has a universal healthcare system, so if the article was about a company in Brazil, such a note would be relevant to me. The problem with this theory isn't just that it's much more widely known internationally that the US has a private insurance system, it's that that is already implied by the rest of the sentence. US employees getting their healthcare coverage fro…

> it's that that is already implied by the rest of the sentence

But is it? Here in the UK, we have the National Health Service with completely free treatment except for some combinations of basic services and higher personal income levels. Yet, most employers for higher-up jobs provide part or even full private healthcare. A quick search on a jobs board shows some examples:

Train driver at Great Western Railways:

  ...all GWR colleagues enjoy a range of benefits including... [a] company-sponsored health care plan...
Software developer at Motorola*:

  ...Also, to reward your hard work you’ll get... Private medical care...
Senior accountant at a firm in Teddington, salary £50k-£65k:

  ...Benefits... Private medical insurance...
Are these employers offering this because the NHS isn't good enough at keeping their employees healthy? Because they want to make a political point against state-funded welfare? Because it's a status symbol? I don't know, but again, they are offering (a supposedly better version of) a vital service that people already have provided by the country. So to continue the earlier analogy of Brazil, if my ignorant self read that a Brazilian company provided private health insurance, I wouldn't be able to tell whether this was a 'nice extra to have' on top of state support like it is here, or an absolutely vital service like in the USA.

> This is proving my case. You don't need sock puppets if your modus operandi is to make neutral edits.

I agree with you here. If it wasn't clear, I wasn't trying to defend user 'GoldDragon' or those like them. It's a biased statement by its wording, but the facts are all there and accurate. I think I like that aspect of Wikipedia - yes, there is editorial bias, but it can only exist around the fringes of the facts; conjecture is strictly banned. In my experience, plenty of newspapers indulge in conjecture as well as editorial bias; being primary sources doesn't fully redeem them for this.

* this one is unintentionally hilarious, as they also promise company-funded 'life assurance'. If only :)

Re: Wikipedia daily most viewed pages

#165

Post by addandsubtract »

throwitaway222 wrote: post #143
casperb wrote: post #5

Fascinating how many pages in the top 20 of today of topics I have never heard of. Seems like a great way to see what is being talked about in the culture, without depending on the news?

I noticed "Reacher (TV Series)" showed up. I guess we finally have a way to figure out what people are watching....

TPB et al. will tell you that, too.

Re: Wikipedia daily most viewed pages

#166

Post by AnthonyMouse »

seabass-labrax wrote: post #164
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For instance, I have no idea whether or not Brazil has a universal healthcare system, so if the article was about a company in Brazil, such a note would be relevant to me. The problem with this theory isn't just that it's much more widely known internationally that the US has a private insurance system, it's that that is already implied by the rest of the sentence. US employees getting their healthcare coverage fro…

> it's that that is already implied by the rest of the sentence But is it? Here in the UK, we have the National Health Service with completely free treatment except for some combinations of basic services and higher personal income levels. Yet, most employers for higher-up jobs provide part or even full private healthcare. A quick search on a jobs board shows some examples: Train driver at Great Western Railways: ...…

> So to continue the earlier analogy of Brazil, if my ignorant self read that a Brazilian company provided private health insurance, I wouldn't be able to tell whether this was a 'nice extra to have' on top of state support like it is here, or an absolutely vital service like in the USA.

Only you can:

> "GM, for instance, at one time picked up the entire cost of funding health insurance premiums of its employees, their survivors and GM retirees"

Implies the employees et al are paying part or all of the premiums themselves in the alternative.

> "private health insurance"

Implies they get public health insurance in the alternative.

> It's a biased statement by its wording, but the facts are all there and accurate. I think I like that aspect of Wikipedia - yes, there is editorial bias, but it can only exist around the fringes of the facts; conjecture is strictly banned.

Selection bias is all you need to control the world though.

> In my experience, plenty of newspapers indulge in conjecture as well as editorial bias; being primary sources doesn't fully redeem them for this.

Newspapers are notoriously biased. See Yellow Journalism etc. It's the same practice and the same problem -- a lie of omission is a type of lie, not a type of honesty. They'd like to lie, but don't want to get caught in a lie or sued for libel, so they lead you down the garden path.

"Technically Correct: The Best Kind of Correct." Because that's how you get away with something. But getting away with something isn't neutrality, it's the system having a bias in your favor.

Re: Wikipedia daily most viewed pages

#168

Post by somenameforme »

bazoom42 wrote: post #156
somenameforme wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia, unlike more classical encyclopedias such as e.g. Britannica, is not a primary source, by design. On anything tangentially related to topics like politics it's obligated to rely on sources like the US media which make no effort to even feign neutrality or balance. And of course these sources are then cited by editors who, similarly, have little interest in even feigning balance, beyond some minimal pretext.…

Brittanica is not a primary source either. Encyclopedias are considered tertiary sources. Encyclopedias are not supposed to perform original research but to aggregate and condense information from secondary sources. What sources do you think Britannica can use which are not available to Wikipedia?

Among Britannica's authors are Einstein, Trotsky, Asimov, Milton Friedman, and many such others. [1] In Wikipedia, Trotsky himself could not opine on e.g. communism. By contrast, the words of a random junior journalist in an opinion piece published on a newspaper website are perfectly legitimate for publication in an article on communism. Wikipedia is simply a very different sort of project than an encyclopedia.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica#P...

Re: Wikipedia daily most viewed pages

#169

Post by lupusreal »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #163
lupusreal wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like she (daughter) planned it or at least provided the weapon, but the person who actually did it was her boyfriend and is now serving life without possibility of parole. Kind of a crazy sentence considering the 'victim' truly had it coming (tortured her daughter for years, with unnecessary surgeries, feeding tube, etc)

It turns out you can't just go and unilaterally decide to kill people. There is a good reason people want government institutions to jealously guard this right. The government is very fickle with giving out the death penalty.

Obviously prison time was warranted, I just think life without parole was excessive. 20 years would have been adaquate justice in this case.
Post reply on HN