JazzNZoeysmom Zippy Glidershorts    USA 5354 Posts quote:
Originally posted by valkyriemome
Gliderpedia will remain biased against Bourbon. Nothing you can do about that. That's pretty much old news. Anyone can modify Gliderpedia, but if you seek impartial, accurate information, you shouldn't look there. Some modifications won't be accepted, and if you modify somethings, they will "revert" to the way they were.
If you wish to talk about the specific ingredients of BML, and express any concerns, I suggest you contact Bourbon. She has more information and has done more research and heard more specific results than anyone else on this subject. If you have questions, ask Bourbon.
You are probably 100% correct on that. I guess I just feel that information that is meant to educate should be impartial and speaking for myself... when I read something that is supposed to be informing me...just like I stumbled upon this morning.... I was looking for information to help educate someone on diet, or at least direct them to where they could go to get educated and I read something that seems so blatantly biased, it makes me question the motive and the validity of the information itself. I for one more often than not dismiss it, and the sad thing is, it may be very valid but the tone has totally turned me off. The reason I bring this up is because we direct many newbys to Gliderpedia, and chances are, at this stage of glider ownership, new people don't know who Bourbon is, they don't know all the back-drama, they don't know enough to choose what information is true and which is biased...they don't know they can contact her with questions concerning her diet...heck, she's just the B in BML, they don't associate her as someone tangible and accessible. I just feel that the information should be presented in a middle of the road way, then if it is feasible a disclaimer can be put at the bottom. THIS ING. CONTAINS K3 WHICH HAS BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH...BLAH, BLAH, BLAH... Please research this for yourself so you may make an informed decision when feeding your gliders.... Something to that effect...and it should be put on all of these diets that seem to have questionable ingredients because the fact is, what is unacceptable to you may be acceptable to me. Newbys come on here seeking answers and they think this stuff is written by people who are all knowing in all things glider. All I'm pointing out is, when they are around for awhile and start learning the ins & outs it can be quite disheartening when they finally see the "man behind the curtain" so to speak...and it can lead people to then not trust any of the information being offered which defeats the whole purpose. I like this forum. I am on here more than any other and I would just hate to see it get to the point where people start saying, "oh don't go there, they have no idea what they're talking about!" Eric C Retired    TX, USA 2321 Posts JazzNZoeysmom: I'm not sure what it means to say that a diet is outdated. To say that has an implication that newer diets are somehow better, which is something I would personally disagree with. If your concern is about a lack of mention of menadione on the page regarding Ruth's diet, then I can assure you that that omission is simply an oversight and in no way intentional. That Ruth's diet is even included in the Gliderpedia is simply as an additional resource, largely historical. I think the oversight of not having a disclaimer on Ruth's diet page isn't that big of a deal. Indeed, had I been asked prior to this discussion what the difference is between Ruth's diet and BML, I would have said that it was the vitamins. I was genuinely surprised to see that the vitamin supplement was the same. Of course, memorizing which diet uses which company's supplement is not something I care to do. But that's simply a side note. The reason I don't think it's a big deal that Ruth's page doesn't have the disclaimer is that Ruth's diet is nowhere near as heavily promoted as BML. I think you would be hard pressed to find a mention of Ruth's diet anywhere else, whereas for BML, you'll find that mentioned all over the place, and promoted as a diet to be used. If you feel so strongly that the disclaimer is needed on Ruth's, then please feel free to become a an editor and fix it yourself. However, you might find that the other side of the coin is that perhaps the inclusion of a synthetic vitamin K may not be that big of an issue and that the disclaimer on BML should be removed. This sort of conundrum arises because both Ruth's diet and BML fall under the category of husbandry, and husbandry is largely just opinion. Just like there is no one right way to raise human children, the same easily applies to owning pets. Diet has always been a hot topic and always will be. You may want to read my original thoughts on the diet pages, www.sugarglider.com/glidergossip/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7893
And I highly suggest you look at the posts I made on the focus and purpose of the gliderpedia, suggestions on article guidelines, and most importantly the responses I received: www.sugarglider.com/glidergossip/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7084
www.sugarglider.com/glidergossip/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7272
www.sugarglider.com/glidergossip/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7110
www.sugarglider.com/glidergossip/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7598
www.sugarglider.com/glidergossip/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7315
As you can see from the responses, no one was really interested in helping to create and ultimately shape the gliderpedia into a useful resource. I'd like to reiterate my stance on diet, in that I think the gliderpedia should focus on the wild glider and not the captive glider. However, my personal life has prevented me from doing much with this website anymore, and so Kazko took over the lead with maintaining the site, and thus the gliderpedia. We differ in opinion on what the focus of the gliderpdia should be, and I offer to you Kazko's discussion on the role of diet in the gliderpedia: www.sugarglider.com/glidergossip/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=18937
Obviously, the focus and direction of the Gliderpedia has changed. Now that it includes husbandry, there will inevitably be differences of opinion regarding its content. Even though the purity of focusing on only the wild glider that I had originally wanted is now just an afterthought, I can't say that the gliderpedia is any worse off now. Personally, I think that even with any faults or differences of opinion, it's still an extremely useful tool. And I do stress that it is merely a tool. Having a consolidated location of all sorts of glider information that is relatively easy to edit and create is very useful in my opinion. That it is not perfect does not make it any less useful. In terms of the editing diet pages in the gliderpedia, and I sincerely hope that I've stressed that such a thing falls under the "opinion" category, it might be more fruitful to start a discussion as a means of gathering input and other people's opinions. I much prefer cogent discussions over unsubstantiated fluff. JazzNZoeysmom Zippy Glidershorts USA 5354 Posts Thank you Eric, and your point about the disclaimer being removed from BML was exactly my point. IMO either have it on both or remove it from the one since it's the very same supplement. I have since learned that there is no love lost between Terry & Bourbon and maybe that is why the information is skewed or as you said, Ruths isn't really wide spread so maybe it was a simple oversight. Again, I can only speak for myself but I do send people to Gliderpedia and when I do I would just like to know I'm giving them the best info. available, and now that Ruths IS in there, it may pick up a bit of steam and have more people using it, which leads us right back to discalimer or no disclaimer. I was feeding one of the "recognized" diets for awhile in the beginning. As I became more knowledgable and learned what questions I needed to ask...I asked those of the creator...I got run around in circles and I feel mislead on some of the points that concerned me. Needless to say, I no longer feed that diet and will not recommend it. That experience came to mind when I came across this BML/RUTHS issue in Gliderpedia and I just know that if I feel like someone is misleading me or giving me false info. on one thing, what other information they give is false and misleading? I didn't want that to be the case for others if they came across this discrepency in Gliderpedia...that was my whole thought behind this thread. I didn't mean to insult anyone or tell you or Terry what should or shouldn't be on YOUR forum. As I mentioned, I thought new forum members had access to get in and change things & I thought that may have been the case, and if so, they should pay closer attention to the info. they put out there for the public. IF it was done out of pure malic for Bourbon by you or Terry, HEY! I may not agree but it's your forum and you can do whatever you want, and if it bothers me so much I guess I can make a dramatic Goodbye post and make my exit!  (not saying it was, just saying it's your guys' perogotive to do as you wish and those that don't like it can leave) And I thank you for your post, it actually gives me some insight as to the direction you had in mind for Gliderpedia...and maybe I will become an editor in time. At this point I don't feel knowledgable enough to contribute. I know how new owners feel and believe me, in the beginning we hang onto info. from sources like Gliderpedia like it's Gospel! ~ Another reason for my post. I know people will read this info. and feel like it must be written by glider experts, hence be 100% true...I just wouldn't want to mislead anyone.
 |
New Message |
 |
|
. |
|
Home
Glider Gossip
Gliderpedia
Journals
Resources
Gliderpedia Changes
