The power of Wikipedia!
#51
Posted 19 November 2006 - 11:56
It was first for me... and also fifth!
Advertisement
#52
Posted 19 November 2006 - 12:05
#53
Posted 19 November 2006 - 12:10
"Mille Miglia 1952" - no wiki on the first five pages.
"Mille Miglia" +1952 - wiki was the fourth result, plus a couple more on that page and the next.
"Mille Miglia" +1952 +results - same result as Ray (first and fifth entries).
If I clicked on 'UK pages only' I got no wiki (for two pages, at least).
#54
Posted 19 November 2006 - 12:11
#55
Posted 19 November 2006 - 12:28
If you google Mille Miglia 1952 without inverted commas, then Wiki appears near the top.
If you enclose it in inverted commas then it doesn't, because Google looks for the exact phrase.
The first option gives "about 111,000" results, the second 1910.
Clear?
#56
Posted 19 November 2006 - 12:31
#58
Posted 19 November 2006 - 13:17
#59
Posted 19 November 2006 - 13:25
Advertisement
#60
Posted 19 November 2006 - 13:56
http://wsrp.wz.cz/
Unfortunately there are times when it's painfully slow - like today. If that happens I do a google search something along these lines:
wsrp mille miglia non Championship races 1952 , then I look at the Google cache rather than the site itself, which usually opens straight away.
I can see what you mean about wikipedia and it's clones taking over though, I guess the answer is that when you find a useful site save it to your favourites.
#61
Posted 28 November 2006 - 21:19
I would just like to point out, so that TNF does not commit the very crime Wikipedia is accused of (perpetuating inaccuracies or myths), that there was never a game of ping pong regarding Tripoli 1933. It read "The race was held in conjunction with the state lottery and the 1933 inaugural event is notorious for having been fixed. The scandal led to substantial rule changes." for the first 11 months of the article's history. Then after coming to the attention of this place, over a few days it underwent an iterative improvement until it read:Originally posted by D-Type
As a test; what does Wikipedia currently say about the Tripoli GP/ At one time there was a game of ping pong between those who believed Neubauer and those who had read Don Capps.
"1933 - Accusation of Foul Play
The legend goes that a handful of the drivers colluded to fix who won the race. This story first appears in Alfred Neubauer’s 1958 book Speed Was My Life (Männer, Frauen und Motoren: Die Erinnerungen des Mercedes- Rennleiters). However research suggests that the story is a myth, abet a popular one [1]
1. H. Donald Capps. Tripoli 1933 - A Hard Look at the Legend"
That paragraph has remained unchanged for the last year. Definitely no ping-pong!
Ref:
http://en.wikipedia....&action=history
#62
Posted 28 November 2006 - 21:24
If you want the plagiarism removed, the details are onOriginally posted by Leif Snellman
... or try "Pau" and compare it to
http://www.kolumbus....lman/t1.htm#PAU
http://en.wikipedia....right_violation
#63
Posted 29 November 2006 - 12:45
Looking for details of the Nash Palm Beach, I asked google to do its thing... Wikipedia came up second, then in fourth was 'Antique Car.com'... which carried the same minor detail as the Wikipedia site... that there had been a Nash Palm Beach entered by Allard in the 1953 Le Mans.
Curious as to how a car not built until 1956 would be in a 1953 race, and also why it would be entered by Allard when there was Healey right in Nash's pocket, I checked the Le Mans result site that came up at about number 7. But it had a clue right there on the page... the word 'Frazer' in light type before the bold 'Nash Palm Beach.' A clue!
Yes, Allard had a 1500cc Ford-powered Frazer-Nash at Le Mans... and the 'Antique Car.com' page carried a warning that it wasn't professionally edited and that it came from...
Wikipedia!
#64
Posted 14 January 2007 - 05:59
Originally posted by 2F-001
On the other hand, I believe that Wikipedia forbids original research - that is, posted content should be citing, or be based upon, existing material previously published elsewhere (in whatever medium). This might be said to render the format tailor-made for recycling and perpetuating old myths, even those that have already been debunked by more thorough research. One of the chief problems then is that such a readily-accessible resource is bound to be visited and quoted or copied by less diligent researchers than those expressing their reservations here.
What Tony wrote here is very well put.
I wasn't going to weigh in here, but while doing a bit of research, I stumbled across a half-baked (or assed) attempt someone did on Wikipedia on NASCAR drivers (and before anyone tunes out simply because of the magical word: NASCAR, stay tuned because what I am going to bring up applies across the board in all areas on Wikipedia).
It appears as if all this person did was compose information from the Racing Reference.com website (which itself came from the Fielden-Golenbock "NASCAR Encyclopedia") and enter all the names and data until they got bored, tired...or both, apparently at the end of the letter 'B'. This leaves much unentered, not to mention the uncorrected errors from the book.
Now, as much as I hate finishing "projects" sloppily or lazily started by someone else (and I speak from experience, namely my early internet days), I think it behooves those of us in the know to make proper entries to Wikipedia in areas we are versed in, because I guarantee as Tony wrote, many lazy "journalists" will use Wikipedia as the beginning and ending of their "research". Especially when it turns up so readily via Google. Basically, I feel it's our duty to get it right. Otherwise...
To me, it especially rings true with this attempt at NASCAR drivers, since there is no biographical encyclopedia for drivers who competed in NASCAR's top series, many of whom were quite accomplished in other forms of racing or on local or regional level.
Anyone else have thoughts on this dilemma/opportunity?
#65
Posted 14 January 2007 - 12:05
On a practical level, not doing anything about information on there you know to be wrong is only going to cause more problems. If it's a quick edit, you might as well just do it and get it out of the way. Whereas there's no point doing longer jobs if you're not really interested, so I'd just make use of the article's discussion page to have a bitch, and perhaps stick in a dispute template.
What's the url for the NASCAR stuff?
#66
Posted 14 January 2007 - 12:22
DCN
#67
Posted 26 January 2007 - 03:33
http://en.wikipedia...._NASCAR_drivers
Perhaps "duty" was too strong a word, but I've thought of another question for the writers, researchers and historians amongst us to ponder in regards to Wikipedia...
Is it not in the best interest of all concerned to put the information where the most people are likely to see it?
Again, I see the U.S. media in particular using Wiki as the beginning, middle and end of their research. Right now if you took away Google and YouTube, there'd be no "news"
#68
Posted 26 January 2007 - 11:41
This site puts in language we can all understand.
If you're in favour of this campaign, please use Digg or Del.icio.us to indicate your support for the article above and help boost its visibility. The more people who click on 'Digg This', the more people will see the article and the more site owners will make the necessary changes.
Wikipedia is huge - it will take a lot of us to make a difference.
Allen
#69
Posted 26 January 2007 - 12:42
Is that all that's needed... to go to the digg site? Or do we have to register or comment or something else?
#70
Posted 26 January 2007 - 12:44
You may have to register (it's free!) to make it count. I was already registered so I'm not sure what you would see if you weren't.
Allen
#71
Posted 27 January 2008 - 22:24
http://en.wikipedia....ational_Raceway
Perhaps it will survive.
Henry
#72
Posted 22 January 2013 - 12:10
Originally posted by Fred Gallagher
As I understand it, anybody can write and publish a book.....
An irony here... a current eBay listing:
#73
Posted 22 January 2013 - 15:39
So, does it have any pages at all?
#74
Posted 22 January 2013 - 16:35
Does anyone really expect Wikipedia to have the full results and reports of every major motor race that has ever taken place? Just motor-racing? What about the poor netball and Lacrosse fans? Are they to be denied their 1,000 pages? Darts? Tiddlywinks? Perhaps the full cast and chorus of every stage production in the UK?
Wikipedia is as correct as those who make the entries, if you think there are errors, sign up and correct them, put the vast knowledge of all things motorsport resident in this forum to good use...
#75
Posted 22 January 2013 - 17:09
As I understand it Wikipedia's Achilles heel is that it won't accept original research, so even if you have that knowledge - possibly gained from personal observation, deduction or distillation of several sources - it won't be accepted.Wikipedia is as correct as those who make the entries, if you think there are errors, sign up and correct them, put the vast knowledge of all things motorsport resident in this forum to good use...
I'm sure that - for example - Michael could make literally hundreds of corrections to the pages about the Indy 500, based on his own research and knowledge. But the Wikipedia line would be (broadly) that "if it's not in a book it's not acceptable" - even if the books are wrong! On that subject, you only have to look at the threads here and at TrackForum about Russ Catlin: unless and until Catlin's distortions are thoroughly debunked and removed from the record, trying to change Wiki pages based on his flawed material will be a thankless task akin to painting the Forth Bridge.
I could personally make many changes and additions to the periods in which I specialise but in a lot of cases I couldn't back them up with the sort of "evidence" Wikipedia demands - even though I know I'm right.
Edited by Vitesse2, 22 January 2013 - 17:09.
#76
Posted 22 January 2013 - 17:33
As I understand it Wikipedia's Achilles heel is that it won't accept original research, so even if you have that knowledge - possibly gained from personal observation, deduction or distillation of several sources - it won't be accepted.
Really? Are you sure "it won't accept original research"?
My understanding (borne from contributing to Wikipedia over the last three years) is that you can add anything you like as long as it can be properly backed up in some way. A lot of my research WAS derived from distillation of several sources (with an emphasis on written records rather than "heresay"). It is certainly wrong to say "it won't be accepted" in this instance - it was, has been and continues to be! One of the pages I contribute to also has contributions from a number of my peers and I am confident that page at least is as accurate as we are able to make it. Another strength of Wikipedia is that it can be updated as new data/information comes to light.
I'm with Bloggsworth on this one.
Rather than whinge about Wikipedia (not aimed at you Vitesse but others who have posted in this thread), why not enhance that resource by editing content as you see fit as long as your contributions can be backed up in some way? Why not add a new page if one doesn't already exist? There is such a wealth of knowledge in this forum it would be a shame not to see it made more widely available and more easily accessible.
The depth of knowledge and expertise on this forum never ceases to amaze me and I believe it would be of enormous benefit if it could be used to enhance Wikipedia. For one thing, Wikipedia is far better suited to recording and making available combined wisdom than this forum.
Edited by Nev, 22 January 2013 - 17:35.
#77
Posted 22 January 2013 - 18:11
Why is everyone getting so het up about a free resource...
That is precisely the problem. Whether you see it or not, Wikipedia is the beginning of the end of civilization. A society that is not willing to pay for knowledge will starve of it. It is preposterous and extremely ignorant to expect scholars to work for free, nothing, zilch, not even peanuts. I may be fighting windmills, but I am absolutely unflinching in my detestation of that VERY STUPID idea. The sooner we get rid of it, the better!
#78
Posted 22 January 2013 - 19:06
Yes in recent years I have stopped whinging and tried to put a few matters right/add useful bits/etc. where I have the knowledge to do so.Rather than whinge about Wikipedia (not aimed at you Vitesse but others who have posted in this thread), why not enhance that resource by editing content as you see fit as long as your contributions can be backed up in some way? Why not add a new page if one doesn't already exist? There is such a wealth of knowledge in this forum it would be a shame not to see it made more widely available and more easily accessible.
There is always a risk of "ping pong" when you do change something and the original author doesn't accept the change, but it's not frequent unlike gratuitous vandalism.
e.g. under Ford Racing someone had entered "1936 - Ionel Zamfirescu won the Monte Carlo Rally driving a Ford Anglia" and after I'd corrected it to say "1936 - Ionel Zamfirescu and P. G. Cristea won the Monte Carlo Rally driving a Ford V8 Special" the "Ford Anglia" man reappeared - eventually saying they drove a "Ford Anglia with Ford V8 “Flathead”"
I was so fed up that I added "This is an incorrect correction to what I wrote on 6/3/2011. There was nothing Ford Anglia about the special which won as the [http://upload.wikime...tre_cristea.jpg picture here]shows. This is probably not deliberate vandalism, but near enough." and a Wiki editor must have sorted it out!
Edited by Allan Lupton, 22 January 2013 - 19:08.
#79
Posted 22 January 2013 - 19:29
That may be a reason why wikipedia does not accept original research; essentially it acts as a collator of what's already out there. I would hope wikipedia would act as a stimulant - certainly I have bought books because the wikipedia articles have piqued me, and contained bibliographies...That is precisely the problem. Whether you see it or not, Wikipedia is the beginning of the end of civilization. A society that is not willing to pay for knowledge will starve of it. It is preposterous and extremely ignorant to expect scholars to work for free, nothing, zilch, not even peanuts.
Advertisement
#80
Posted 22 January 2013 - 19:31
Pound to a penny that that's a print on demand, automatically generated by a scraping algorithm. There seem to be loads of these parasites on amazon and abebooks.An irony here... a current eBay listing:
#81
Posted 22 January 2013 - 19:41
Mind you, it's also getting away from the original purpose of this thread...
#82
Posted 22 January 2013 - 19:51
#83
Posted 22 January 2013 - 22:19
Is my memory 'source material' or not?
#84
Posted 22 January 2013 - 23:57
Okay, what's so wrong with putting something in there and saying, "I was an eyewitness to this event."?
Is my memory 'source material' or not?
The difficulty is that it then becomes anecdotal, the entries should be impartial, without personal viewpoint. By the way, if you donate you get a nice email from Sue...
#85
Posted 23 January 2013 - 00:11
But I was an eyewitness to the event and knew it wasn't recorded properly, can I correct it?
#86
Posted 23 January 2013 - 00:18
You're game Ray - that's a big chunk to bite-off. There's a fair bit to work through - You could make it your new calling in life...Okay, so let's just say that I see something on there that's been repeated over and over in magazines and books...
But I was an eyewitness to the event and knew it wasn't recorded properly, can I correct it?
#87
Posted 23 January 2013 - 09:51
Okay, so let's just say that I see something on there that's been repeated over and over in magazines and books...
But I was an eyewitness to the event and knew it wasn't recorded properly, can I correct it?
In a situation like that you would contact the moderators as did my friend when telling them that Recall was very much alive. Where facts are in dispute you will often see a (citation needed) in blue beside the entry. Wikipedia really want the information to be accurate, though sometimes, where the "facts" aren't critical or in dispute, odd stuff stays for quite a while, like the legend that Bob Holness, the Blockbusters quizmaster, played saxaphone on Gerry Raffertey's Baker Street...
#88
Posted 23 January 2013 - 10:09
That would leave what I say open to some kind of implied challenge.
Of course, I am talking about if there were a situation where I was completely certain of my facts.
#89
Posted 23 January 2013 - 12:33
I wouldn't be comfortable with that...
That would leave what I say open to some kind of implied challenge.
Of course, I am talking about if there were a situation where I was completely certain of my facts.
Ah! But those who made the previous posting were also sure of their facts - Leaving it open to citation means that anyone else who also saw what you saw could confirm what you said - Due diligence and all that. If you dispute a previous version Wikipedia will put a not saying that the point is under dispute, perfectly reasonable in my opinion.
#90
Posted 23 January 2013 - 14:14
In that report I made it clear that I didn't agree with the official lapscoring and that Peter Brock and Warren Cullen had won easily. Brock agreed with me, but his team didn't protest the outcome... something you would normally expect to happen.
Of course, everyone else reported the 'official' view of the race and I was the odd man out.
So if I were to go to Wikipedia and find that race mentioned there and the 'official' results taken as gospel, and were I to edit in my side of the story, I could only quote myself.
How would I get on?
#91
Posted 23 January 2013 - 14:20
#92
Posted 23 January 2013 - 14:23
#93
Posted 24 January 2013 - 22:52
Here you are aware when something is disputed...
#94
Posted 24 January 2013 - 23:26
#95
Posted 25 January 2013 - 06:26
The biggest problem with Wikipedia is not the mistakes, but the fact that the way it presents subjects is totally out of proportion. Anything that happened post 1990 gets a mention, whereas loads of earlier stuff is totally ignored.
To take an example, just compare the entries for Timo Mäkinen and Colin McRae. Colin gets about ten times the coverage of Timo. Does this mean his contribution to rally history was ten times more important? Mäkinen has two references, McRae 45!
Even within the copy about Mäkinen, his entry in 1994 Monte Carlo Rally is mentioned even though it was just a forgettable publicity stunt, but the 1966 disqualification is omitted. For a younger reader, who is not familiar with Timo's career, it gives a completely skewed picture of the man's standing in the sport.
#96
Posted 25 January 2013 - 08:58
Yes but as mentioned above, if you can be bothered to do so you can add the rest of what you believe should be there to give the whole and appropriate picture.The biggest problem with Wikipedia is not the mistakes, but the fact that the way it presents subjects is totally out of proportion. Anything that happened post 1990 gets a mention, whereas loads of earlier stuff is totally ignored.
To take an example, just compare the entries for Timo Mäkinen and Colin McRae. Colin gets about ten times the coverage of Timo. Does this mean his contribution to rally history was ten times more important? Mäkinen has two references, McRae 45!
Even within the copy about Mäkinen, his entry in 1994 Monte Carlo Rally is mentioned even though it was just a forgettable publicity stunt, but the 1966 disqualification is omitted. For a younger reader, who is not familiar with Timo's career, it gives a completely skewed picture of the man's standing in the sport.
#97
Posted 25 January 2013 - 11:54
Edited by D-Type, 29 January 2013 - 00:01.
#98
Posted 28 January 2013 - 10:07
See some quite impressive examples (sorry, in German):
http://de.wikipedia....loni_(Formel_1)
http://de.wikipedia....Scuderia_Coloni
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minardi
http://de.wikipedia....Theodore_Racing
etc.
In case of the mentioned book I see the fundamental mistake of the author to BASE a book ON wikipedia, while the concept should be exactly the opposite! The concept of wikipedia is to SUM up the knowledge (for which you need some criteria, like accessable sources - no anekdotes, no 'hidden' material, no 'insider' stories etc. - AND relevance! To my experience the latter is the bigger problem as wikipedia members tend to compile much too much into the details so that they get problems to find really 'common' sources, which is my main point of criticism), while for writing a book I would expect the author to do some adequate research. So what use makes a book compiled from a publicly accessable compilation? In my opinion it´s just a ridiculous effort of the author to make some cheap money without having to work of his own.
Advertisement
#100
Posted 27 August 2016 - 21:32
I feel sorry for the DJs.
Edited by Michael Ferner, 27 August 2016 - 21:33.