This is incredible, disappeared Salvadoran war child finds her way home

This story was in today’s Boston Globe. Its so wried because her story is very similar to mine. She was separated from her family during the Salvadorian Civil War, adopted to an American family and even reunited by the same organization.

War child who ‘disappeared’ finds her way back – The Boston Globe: “CACAOPERA, El Salvador — The house was decorated with ribbons and balloons as Suzanne Berghaus walked toward it. The 26-year-old social worker from Wilmington, Mass., would later recall how beautiful the place looked with its colorful bunting and hand-lettered sign welcoming her home. ‘Te Queremos Mucho,’ the sign read. We love you very much.
Article Tools

Valentín Argueta greeted her at the front gate. It was the first time he’d laid eyes on his youngest child in 24 years, since her kidnapping by government soldiers during El Salvador’s long and bloody civil war.”

8 thoughts on “This is incredible, disappeared Salvadoran war child finds her way home

  1. Hmm Wikipedia has all 3 spellings on its page for El Salvador and everyone knows that if its on Wikipedia it must be true.

    Google also comes up with search results for all 3. Although it does suggest Salvadoran.

    However my cousin (in El Salvador) points out that people (like me) from the Boston area are Bostonian so why couldn’t it be Salvadorian?

  2. Hmm Wikipedia has all 3 spellings on its page for El Salvador and everyone knows that if its on Wikipedia it must be true. Google also comes up with search results for all 3. Although it does suggest Salvadoran.However my cousin (in El Salvador) points out that people (like me) from the Boston area are Bostonian so why couldn’t it be Salvadorian?

  3. Hmm: “[E]veryone knows that if it’s on Wikepedia it must be true.” A cursory glimpse through a handful of articles underscore the problematic and often unreliable nature of such a “democratic” project as Wikipedia entries. I thus direct you here to some e-resources on the topic:

    http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?%20id=z6xht2rj60kqmsl8tlq5ltqcshc5y93y

    http://alex.halavais.net/

    http://media.www.roundupnews.com/media/storage/paper474/news/2007/04/02/News/Wikipedia.Editor.Identity.Revealed-2816073.shtml

    Cheers, El Salvadorian.

  4. Hmm: “[E]veryone knows that if it’s on Wikepedia it must be true.” A cursory glimpse through a handful of articles underscore the problematic and often unreliable nature of such a “democratic” project as Wikipedia entries. I thus direct you here to some e-resources on the topic:http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?%20id=z6xht2rj60kqmsl8tlq5ltqcshc5y93yhttp://alex.halavais.net/http://media.www.roundupnews.com/media/storage/paper474/news/2007/04/02/News/Wikipedia.Editor.Identity.Revealed-2816073.shtmlCheers, El Salvadorian.

  5. lol well I just joking about everything on wikipedia being true. I’m very aware of some of the problems that arise with democratizing information. However, for the sake of debate I point you to Chris Anderson’s Book and Blog The Long Tail.

    To quote Chris “these systems operate on the alien logic of probabilistic statistics, which sacrifices perfection at the microscale for optimization at the macroscale.”

    To summarize his points: Wikipedia is not the definitive on anything but it is generally more right than wrong. It is not the end of information exploration but the beginning. Finally, given its open nature it can have articles on more topics that can be corrected faster than traditional encyclopedias.

    Is wikipedia perfected? No, definitely not but I think it is a great example of the power of democratized information.

    Besides, as I hinted in my last comment, is anything really 100% correct anyway?

    …except maybe the Red Sox being the greatest team EVER. 😛

  6. lol well I just joking about everything on wikipedia being true. I’m very aware of some of the problems that arise with democratizing information. However, for the sake of debate I point you to Chris Anderson’s Book and Blog The Long Tail.To quote Chris “these systems operate on the alien logic of probabilistic statistics, which sacrifices perfection at the microscale for optimization at the macroscale.”To summarize his points: Wikipedia is not the definitive on anything but it is generally more right than wrong. It is not the end of information exploration but the beginning. Finally, given its open nature it can have articles on more topics that can be corrected faster than traditional encyclopedias. Is wikipedia perfected? No, definitely not but I think it is a great example of the power of democratized information. Besides, as I hinted in my last comment, is anything really 100% correct anyway? …except maybe the Red Sox being the greatest team EVER. 😛

Leave a Reply