Wikipedia?

On 2010\11\17 17:29, mechanic wrote:
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 16:29:19 GMT, Zero Tolerance wrote:

Problem is, for something on Wikipedia to be considered 'true' it must
be supported by a reliable source - i.e. one of those newspapers or
proper journalists, who (a) don't report everything, and (b) don't
always get it right when they do.

Still better than relying on the input from someone off the street
you've never heard of.

They don't delete stuff that's unverified IME, they just mark it as
unverified, which is an excellent approach. My two sentences about the
ACR song "Winter Hill" at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_...nces_in_son g
were flagged as unverified for a long time, but the qualification has
since been removed and my remarks allowed to stand... maybe they've
realised no-one cares whether it's true or not!

In article ,
Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Jeremy Double
saying something like:

In areas where I have specialist knowledge, Wikipedia is at least as
reliable as other first points of reference.

Yes, well; in a couple of areas where I have definite knowledge of
things that happened, it's bloody wrong. I tried correcting them a
couple of times, but it always got reverted by some effing know-all.

The article on "horse behavior" is pretty poor - there are
numerous gaps, inaccuracies, outdated ideas, perpetuated myths,
and it isn't well referenced. I would overhaul it if I had the
time, but I don't.

Francis

On Nov 17, 4:26*pm, Roland Perry wrote:

That's my experience too. And the website is very biassed towards
published sources, even when they are wrong! Apparently, being there
when it happened, doesn't count.

It's WP policy that verifiability is more important than truth. Most
people can see this as the ridiculous logical implication of a few
overlapping draconian statements and pay no heed to it. However the
interweb exists to provide occupation for obsessional teenagers and as
WP provides them with a power space they wouldn't normally be taken
seriously in, many do latch on to stupidities like this.

Land Speed Record is probably one of the worst articles on there.

On Nov 17, 5:40*pm, Basil Jet wrote:

They don't delete stuff that's unverified IME, they just mark it as
unverified,

On a good day.

which is an excellent approach.

Yes, when it works.

My two sentences about the
ACR song "Winter Hill" athttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_Hill_(North_West_England)#Referen...
were flagged as unverified for a long time, but the qualification has
since been removed and my remarks allowed to stand... maybe they've
realised no-one cares whether it's true or not!

More likely that they have, since you posted this, been flagged as
[[Citation needed]] and that you've been indef blocked for off-wiki
canvassing...

On 2010\11\17 18:07, Andy Dingley wrote:
On Nov 17, 5:40 pm, Basil wrote:

They don't delete stuff that's unverified IME, they just mark it as
unverified,

On a good day.

which is an excellent approach.

Yes, when it works.

My two sentences about the
ACR song "Winter Hill" athttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_Hill_(North_West_England)#Referen...
were flagged as unverified for a long time, but the qualification has
since been removed and my remarks allowed to stand... maybe they've
realised no-one cares whether it's true or not!

More likely that they have, since you posted this, been flagged as
[[Citation needed]] and that you've been indef blocked for off-wiki
canvassing...

I don't understand you.

On 17/11/2010 18:05, Andy Dingley wrote:
On Nov 17, 4:26 pm, Roland wrote:

That's my experience too. And the website is very biassed towards
published sources, even when they are wrong! Apparently, being there
when it happened, doesn't count.

It's WP policy that verifiability is more important than truth. Most
people can see this as the ridiculous logical implication of a few
overlapping draconian statements and pay no heed to it. However the
interweb exists to provide occupation for obsessional teenagers and as
WP provides them with a power space they wouldn't normally be taken
seriously in, many do latch on to stupidities like this.

Land Speed Record is probably one of the worst articles on there.

Yikes. Where's all the entries for Malcolm Campbell?

"David Biddulph" groups [at] biddulph.org.uk wrote in message
...
"Brian Gregory [UK]" wrote in message
...
...
Making it a bit easier to report repeated vandalism would help too.

Easy to do so at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...st_vanda lism

David Biddulph

It's not at all clear.

I think that's the page I tried to use and initially just got a message
along the lines of "this isn't appropriate in a public area" without any
recognition at all of the fact that I was trying to report vandalism.

But it seems to be saying you shouldn't use it unless the user has already
be warned multiple times (it doesn't say how many).

The user I waw trying to report hadn't been warned recently at all so I
wasted quite a long time trying to find some where else to report it that
looked more appropriate.

--

Brian Gregory. (In the UK)

To email me remove the letter vee.

Clive George wrote:
On 17/11/2010 18:05, Andy Dingley wrote:
On Nov 17, 4:26 pm, Roland wrote:

That's my experience too. And the website is very biassed towards
published sources, even when they are wrong! Apparently, being there
when it happened, doesn't count.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yagi-Uda_antenna

There's a diagram showing inter-element spacing for a yagi as 10% of
wavelength, but the text says it's usually 25% of wavelength. As we all
know these bald statements are both misleading. There's also a picture
intended to illustrate the yagi aerial type. Trouble is the aerial has
been assembled incorrectly and the elements are in the wrong position.

To me these errors mean that no-one who actually knows anything about
the subject has ever edited the page.

Actually, the item has a slight smell of radio amateur about it.

Bill

On 2010\11\15 19:43, wrote:
What's happened to Wikipedia? Have they gone bust? If you try to go to
it now the browser hangs or you get a blank page.


Putting the founder's face on the top of every page was an idea they
didn't really think through.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asshole
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/****

On Nov 17, 6:45*pm, Clive George wrote:

Land Speed Record is probably one of the worst articles on there.

Yikes. Where's all the entries for Malcolm Campbell?

...and the rest.

Read the talk page, for the reasons why Donald Campbell's record in
CN7 had to be deleted,.