User contributions for 97.100.165.246
Appearance
For 97.100.165.246 talk block log logs filter log
19 May 2014
- 13:2713:27, 19 May 2014 diff hist +797 User talk:97.100.165.246 →Might I ask what is the source in your vested interest in video games controversies?
18 May 2014
- 16:0916:09, 18 May 2014 diff hist +90 Video game controversies →Scientific debate: actually some kids reduced aggression in this study, which needs to be acknowledged.
- 15:5815:58, 18 May 2014 diff hist +1 Video game controversies →Scientific debate: I think this is just a little clearer
- 15:5515:55, 18 May 2014 diff hist +147 Video game controversies →Scientific debate: just adding another ref to this...scribd seems to be down for the moment, but I'm guessing that's a problem on their end.
- 15:5315:53, 18 May 2014 diff hist +1,122 Video game controversies →Scientific debate
- 14:3414:34, 18 May 2014 diff hist +226 Desensitization (psychology) →Effects on Violence: adding balance to this section
- 13:4513:45, 18 May 2014 diff hist −392 V-chip →Forces leading to development: removing unsourced essay-like. Might be some truth to there being a moral panic over this contributing to V-chip, but would need to be a more more sophisticated and sourced discussion Tag: section blanking
- 13:3713:37, 18 May 2014 diff hist +435 Video game controversies →Censorship and regulation
- 13:3013:30, 18 May 2014 diff hist +565 Video game controversies →Public debate in US
- 13:2113:21, 18 May 2014 diff hist +1,012 Video game controversies →Scientific debate: David, you're hard to keep up with, slow down man! :)
- 13:0713:07, 18 May 2014 diff hist +520 Video game controversies →Scientific debate
- 12:5712:57, 18 May 2014 diff hist −440 Video game controversies →Scientific debate: in wrong group of studies
- 12:5512:55, 18 May 2014 diff hist +354 Video game controversies →Scientific debate
- 12:4912:49, 18 May 2014 diff hist +771 Video game controversies →Scientific debate
- 12:3312:33, 18 May 2014 diff hist +261 Video game controversies →Scientific debate: Balancing an apocryphal claim, I think this has been outright denied by the military too
- 12:1612:16, 18 May 2014 diff hist +961 Video game controversies Undid revision 609003108 by David A (talk) I disagree...if there are questions about the entire approach, they apply to a sub area.
17 May 2014
- 13:3613:36, 17 May 2014 diff hist +962 Video game controversies →Criticism of fMRI studies: adding some background debate on fMRI studies.
- 13:1113:11, 17 May 2014 diff hist +154 Video game controversies →Scientific debate: important to make clear this study speculated about multiple contributors, not just media
- 13:0413:04, 17 May 2014 diff hist −43 Video game controversies →Scientific debate: None of the cited studies linked population levels of empathy to media either. You can't imply otherwise. You've included a study here that merely speculates, I understand it's important to you, but that needs to be made clear
- 13:0113:01, 17 May 2014 diff hist +74 Video game controversies Undid revision 608919003 by David A (talk) This conclusion of his was based on his analyses
16 May 2014
- 21:0121:01, 16 May 2014 diff hist +61 Video game controversies Undid revision 608868985 by David A (talk) Citations are not the same thing as data. The authors provide no data on media effects. they don't show their data on empathy is related to media
14 May 2014
- 04:5404:54, 14 May 2014 diff hist +448 Effects of violence in mass media →Response to criticisms: Perhaps this as a compromise Kjeongeun?
- 04:5004:50, 14 May 2014 diff hist +179 Effects of violence in mass media →Response to criticisms: clarifying not all researchers in this area agree
- 04:4204:42, 14 May 2014 diff hist −732 Effects of violence in mass media Undid revision 608153329 Well the fact that it's actually rarely cited at all in media violence work is one thing, but these types of stories are generally considered "ecological fallacies", see Gauntlett 2005, or Grimes, Anderson & Bergen 2008
13 May 2014
- 13:3113:31, 13 May 2014 diff hist +306 Media psychology →Theoretical perspectives: balancing
- 00:3300:33, 13 May 2014 diff hist −461 Video game controversies →Scientific debate: since we cut quotes from Grohol, probably fair to cut this as well, to the equivalent "someone else supported them" Grohol gets as a mention.
10 May 2014
- 15:4715:47, 10 May 2014 diff hist +61 Video game controversies →Scientific debate: just important to make clear there's no data on media effects, which a reader might otherwise infer
- 14:3914:39, 10 May 2014 diff hist +151 Video game controversies →Scientific debate: I do think we need the final conclusion
- 14:3414:34, 10 May 2014 diff hist −4 Video game controversies →Scientific debate: I don't see the formatting error? Perhaps you fixed it?
- 14:3014:30, 10 May 2014 diff hist +698 User talk:Myrtlegroggins No edit summary
- 14:1914:19, 10 May 2014 diff hist +792 Video game controversies →Scientific debate: I still think this needs to be part of this, as this issue is one of the controversies in the field.
- 14:0614:06, 10 May 2014 diff hist +149 Video game controversies →Scientific debate: I was just trying to say more or less what the last line says...and if you read through the report, they do discuss a lot of the methodological issues.
- 13:4813:48, 10 May 2014 diff hist +180 Video game controversies →Scientific debate: Ok, to keep, but need to be more honest...this was not a media article.
- 13:4513:45, 10 May 2014 diff hist +49 Video game controversies →Scientific debate: David, what about this?
- 13:4313:43, 10 May 2014 diff hist +69 Video game controversies Undid revision 607909065 When discussing that research, she carefully cites research from both sides. If there's a better wording, I'm open to it, but your wording implies her endorsement of one side.
- 13:0413:04, 10 May 2014 diff hist −1 Video game controversies →Scientific debate: Huesmann himself has been criticized for exaggerating media effects (see Savage, 2004 for instance)...either that needs to be balanced or all the quotes should be truncated to avoid this "he said"/"she said" quality...
- 13:0013:00, 10 May 2014 diff hist −590 Video game controversies →Scientific debate: I'm not sure the empathy article is relevant either...just read it...they do mention media, but out of 5 possible causes which they admit is speculation and they offer no evidence. The alternative is to counter with other opinions
- 12:5012:50, 10 May 2014 diff hist +258 Video game controversies →Scientific debate: clarifying the context of the quote though.
- 12:4812:48, 10 May 2014 diff hist +228 Video game controversies Undid revision 607871563 by David A (talk) both pretty clear to me and important
- 12:4612:46, 10 May 2014 diff hist +69 Video game controversies →Scientific debate: important to make clear Granic et al., didn't necessarily support the negative effects camp.
9 May 2014
- 22:3122:31, 9 May 2014 diff hist +284 Video game controversies →Scientific debate: I do agree about not making it personal, but I think the quote is still important...if this is going to be such a quote-heavy page...howabout this as compromise?
- 10:0610:06, 9 May 2014 diff hist +716 Video game controversies Sherry's opinion is hardly irrelevant, please don't remove. Providing a bit more detail, however
- 10:0110:01, 9 May 2014 diff hist +58 Video game controversies Undid revision 607735985 by David A (talk) Reverting, I don't think the two are quite the same
- 01:3001:30, 9 May 2014 diff hist +682 Video game controversies →Scientific debate: adding the Markey & Markey paper to balance out the Ferguson/Olson paper.
8 May 2014
- 22:4222:42, 8 May 2014 diff hist −264 Video game controversies →Scientific debate: yeah, I think lose the quote. Might be good to add in Markey & Markey 2010 which suggested some vulnerability at least for mild short-term effects
- 21:3721:37, 8 May 2014 diff hist +419 Video game controversies →Scientific debate: might be better. I think this page has gotten quote heavy which has given it a "he said/she said" feel though. Wonder if we even need the quote.
- 21:3121:31, 8 May 2014 diff hist −91 Video game controversies →Scientific debate: this quote doesn't pertain to the debate over Anderson et al., so should be moved to a different spot. Probably should quote from the study rather than this random quote, which I'll add in later. Also was an orphan ref there.
- 13:4113:41, 8 May 2014 diff hist +40 Video game controversies →Scientific debate: Actually I think this is a better quote that better represents their views...although if you wish to keep both that's fine.
- 12:4412:44, 8 May 2014 diff hist +574 Video game controversies →Scientific debate: adding the usual balance to an issue.
- 12:3812:38, 8 May 2014 diff hist −366 Video game controversies →Other Negative Effects: Sorry David, restoring old version, you're making it too redundant with the section above. Also avoid weasle words like "many studies" when it's a controversial area.