209 replies to this topic

[AByrne27]

I don't like to defend Wikipedia very often, as its editorial standards - at least where motorsport and especially Formula 1 is concerned - can be a strange combination of mercurial and pedantic but, to give that community some credit, they do make the distinction between the pre-1981 World Championship of Drivers/International Cup for F1 Constructors, and the current Formula 1 World Championship. It's even mentioned in the second paragraph of the 1981 season article: https://en.wikipedia...ld_Championship

 

I think Ensign said it best in that it's more a question of semiotics than one of history. Yes, there are fundamental differences between the current championship and the 1950-80 one, but in many ways 1981 was much the same as 1980: Williams, Brabham, Ferrari and all the rest competed; Alan Jones carried the number 1 in recognition of his position as reigning world champion, even if the championship of which he was the winner no longer existed; Grands Prix were run at tracks like Buenos Aires, Zolder and Hockenheim to much the same distance as they had before; there was a maximum engine capacity of 3 litres naturally aspirated or 1.5 litres turbocharged et cetera, et cetera...

 

While I think the pre-1981 history of Grand Prix racing tends to be very poorly understood even among people who take an interest in the subject (especially those who, like myself, grew up watching Formula 1 in the Mosley and Todt eras), I think it's a bit much to suggest that there's a conspiracy or anything of the sort to suppress any knowledge of the old championship. The true facts are there in plain sight even on Wikipedia, a place I would never recommend for anything beyond bare introductory reading. Although there is indeed a tendency for oversimplification which can be infuriating at times for those who know better (a recent promotional video for the Monaco Grand Prix strongly implied that the first race in the Principality was in 1950 ), in the case of the 1950/1981 distinction I think it is justified to some extent.

 

As for the ACF/FFSA question, was that not at its core a mere transition of power? DSJ says this in the August 1968 edition of Motor Sport:

 

"After the upheaval in French motoring circles last winter, when the F.F.S.A. took control of the sport from the A.C.F., a statement was issued that there would not be a further Grand Prix de l'A.C.F., which many people took to mean that there would be no French Grand Prix, but later the F.F.S.A. put out a notice that they would be running the first Grand Prix de France. So 1968 saw the end of the oldest Grand Prix race in history, the G.P. de l'A.C.F., and the start of the youngest, the Grand Prix of France. For those not interested in definitions and organisations all this was of little importance, for the previous races have always been referred to as the French Grand Prix, and the new title is translated into English with the same words. It is really a case of a change of government and title, but the established event remains the same."

 

Can we not, to use another Orwellian analogy, apply "doublethink" and acknowledge these changes while still treating them as a continuation of what preceded them?

Edited by AByrne27, 25 June 2018 - 19:23.

[Jim Thurman]

While technically correct, much like the U.S. "Championship" racing boondoggle, much of it is putting too fine a point to it and - as seems to so often be the case - down to semantics (well, aside from the phantom championships retroactively created by Catlin). There is absolutely no "record book"  for general public consumption that is going to publish dozens of separate charts or have pages worth of footnotes. A few asterisks here and there, or a brief explanatory graf, is the best that can be realistically expected.

 

I'm with Michael on this one, Don. There are many far more ridiculous errors in the chronicling of motorsport history that scream out to be corrected over what comes off as a Don Quixote-like tilt at the windmill that is a lineage*   

 

For examples, some of the material at Wikipedia. Like the mindboggling claim that Dario Resta lived in a city he likely never passed through, and built a race track in the area that didn't exist until 70 years after his death! Or, the tall tale involving Ed Elisian's death (both since removed). Those are far more concerning than series lineages, literal as the case may be made for them.

 

For example, I have no problem with references to career records in NASCAR's top series or the AAA/USAC/CART/ChampCar/IRL/Indycar lineage. Sponsorship name changes muddy the issue, but the lineage is still there*

 

*again, the exceptions being things like the retroactive AAA Championships

Edited by Jim Thurman, 26 June 2018 - 16:40.

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by Sterzo
.....there's..... a Movement for the Banning of Tomato in Pre-Packaged Sandwiches.....

Ah, the wonders of finding a small point to work with...

I'm pretty ambivalent about a lot of these things as long as there is some level of correctness. But I do arch my back at the thought of there being people in the world who don't believe tomatoes can be sliced without bleeding into the bread!

How silly they are. All you have to do is slice the tomato vertically instead of horizontally, then (as much as it looks like it will be worse) your sandwiches will be dry when you open them to eat before the start of the Grand Prix.

[RogerFrench]

So we can reasonably accept the term "French Grand Prix" as something generic, covering a multitude of existences. I'm happy with that.
Meanwhile, Mr. Capps, please continue to pick nits as finely as you like, so we may be informed and reminded of the past and deviations from origin. Thank you.

[Glengavel]

I find a layer of salad leaves helps prevent the tomato from infiltrating the bread.

 

On the lesser subject of the French Grand Prix, I notice Wikipedia continues to apply a numeric prefix to the event, in the guise of 'Official Name', for a few years after 1967. The image on this page www.progcovers.com/motor/f11968.html indicates that the GP of that year was the '1er Grand Prix de France', which by "1er" I take to mean "the first", but subsequent years' programmes don't continue this sequence.

 

If you think all this is nitpickery, you should see the debate raging ad nauseum among certain factions in Glasgow about Rangers football club...

[ensign14]

So if the 1967 French GP was the first Grand Prix de France, what was the thing Victor Hemery won on 23 July 1911?  Or Paul Bablot on 5 August 1913?

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by Glengavel
I find a layer of salad leaves helps prevent the tomato from infiltrating the bread.....

Just take my word for it, you'll only need to try it once to find out...

Cut the tomato vertically. It will not bleed into the bread.

[Michael Ferner]

I find a layer of salad leaves helps prevent the tomato from infiltrating the bread.

I wish I could find a layer of salad leaves in my sandwich...

[Michael Ferner]

So if the 1967 French GP was the first Grand Prix de France, what was the thing Victor Hemery won on 23 July 1911?  Or Paul Bablot on 5 August 1913?

The 1968 race was the first Grand Prix de France of the FFSA, while the 1911 and '13 races were organized by the ACO (Automobile Club de l'Ouest). There were also Grands Prix de France by the UMF (Union Motocycliste Française), MCF (Motocycle Club de France) as well as umpteen non-motorsport organisations. None of them have anything to do with each other.

[Nick Planas]

According to Sammy Davis, the 1924 Grand Prix, near Lyons, was the last real Grand Prix... - I'm currently enjoying reading his book Motor Racing - fascinating reading and lots of chuckles too at other such comments.

[Roger Clark]

The 1968 race was the first Grand Prix de France of the FFSA, while the 1911 and '13 races were organized by the ACO (Automobile Club de l'Ouest). There were also Grands Prix de France by the UMF (Union Motocycliste Française), MCF (Motocycle Club de France) as well as umpteen non-motorsport organisations. None of them have anything to do with each other.

There were eight Grands Prix de France in 1952.

[Michael Ferner]

I think that's a linguistic misunderstanding? Those races carried their usual names (GP de Pau, GP de Paris etc.), but were run in a series of races as the Grands Prix of France, meaning the GP races run in France. If you translate to German, it's easy to understand the difference, but maybe not so in English?

[Roger Clark]

Possibly, but the book Reims, Vitesse, Champagne et Passion (in French), says that the Formula 2 race held there on Dimanche, 29 Juin 1952 had the title Grand Prix de France.

There was also a Grand Prix de France in 1949, the Grand Prix de l’ACF being for sports cars.

[DCapps]

 

The race car drivers still had to commute to the races using the same stock cars that competed in a typical weekend's race through a policy of homologation (and under their own power). This policy was in effect until roughly 1975. By 1980, NASCAR had completely stopped tracking the year model of all the vehicles and most teams did not take stock cars to the track under their own power anymore.

 

https://en.wikipedia...ston_Cup_Series

 

         

 

How can you even begin to make this sort of nonsense up?

[Jim Thurman]

       

 

How can you even begin to make this sort of nonsense up?

 

Don, you've stumbled across one of the greatest howlers that I've run across at Wikipedia (aside from the Dario Resta one. Any update on that, BTW?). I chalk this up to what I've mentioned, that it appears to have been written and entered by someone to whom English is not their primary language, and a tremendous amount (all of it really) got lost in mistranslation. More like someone who is enthusiastic, but not very knowledgeable about American racing, coupled with a language barrier. And there is much, much evidence of this in Wikipedia entries on U.S. motorsports, just going by language and choice of words. It seems as if a surprisingly large amount of Wikipedia entries on U.S. motorsports have been written and entered by these folks.

 

It is repeated in the Wikipedia entry for the 1979 Texas 400

[Bloggsworth]

Don, you've stumbled across one of the greatest howlers that I've run across at Wikipedia (aside from the Dario Resta one. Any update on that, BTW?). I chalk this up to what I've mentioned, that it appears to have been written and entered by someone to whom English is not their primary language, and a tremendous amount (all of it really) got lost in mistranslation. More like someone who is enthusiastic, but not very knowledgeable about American racing, coupled with a language barrier. And there is much, much evidence of this in Wikipedia entries on U.S. motorsports, just going by language and choice of words. It seems as if a surprisingly large amount of Wikipedia entries on U.S. motorsports have been written and entered by these folks.

 

It is repeated in the Wikipedia entry for the 1979 Texas 400

 

So why doesn't an American fan, who knows what of he speaks, set the records straight? There are enough knowledgeable contributors to TNF to do American motorsport justice.

[DCapps]

So why doesn't an American fan, who knows what of he speaks, set the records straight? There are enough knowledgeable contributors to TNF to do American motorsport justice.

 

Why? Because any nitwit can go back and then delete or edit or fundamentally screw up what is written by someone such as you suggest, for starters....

 

Postscript: We don't need "fans," we need historians.

Edited by DCapps, 21 September 2018 - 20:02.

[Jim Thurman]

So why doesn't an American fan, who knows what of he speaks, set the records straight? There are enough knowledgeable contributors to TNF to do American motorsport justice.

 

I've tried. I have changed many. And there are times that I have run into exactly what Don describes. There comes a point where one simply grows tired of pushing a boulder up a hill. There is such a thing as time limitations, and I for one, do not wish to spend the entirety of what remains of my life correcting errors at Wikipedia.

Edited by Jim Thurman, 21 September 2018 - 21:46.

[DCapps]

So why doesn't an American fan, who knows what of he speaks, set the records straight? There are enough knowledgeable contributors to TNF to do American motorsport justice.

 

 

I've tried. I have changed many. And there are times that I have run into exactly what Don describes. There comes a point where one simply grows tired of pushing a boulder up a hill. There is such a thing as time limitations, and I for one, do not wish to spend the entirety of what remains of my life correcting errors at Wikipedia.

 

Exactly. I have nothing but admiration for Jim and the others from here who have tried to combat the basic flaw of Wikipedia. However, all that they have probably received for their many efforts is the Sisyphus Medal of Merit. As Jim also points out, believe it or not, there are other ways to spend your life other than dealing with the errors found at Wikipedia, especially given its stance again what historians actually do: Research. As in asking questions that leads to research using original archival materials whenever possible and the development of interpretations based upon that research, which in turn leads to further questions and more research. Wikipedia basically rewards the vomiting onto the Internet of whatever nonsense someone might find or think that they found from some source and pass it off as real or factual. For every accurate Wikipedia article, one gets the feeling that there are more than a few other articles that should be approached with some degree of caution.

 

In the example I cited from the 1971 season, whatever possessed that person or persons to write something such as that? It is beyond ludicrous and reveals an almost total lack of understanding, an astounding ignorance, and probably a serious degree of stupidity of the topic, so why even attempt to write about it???????????????????

[Allan Lupton]

I've had my contributions amended to read more simply (as per "a child's guide to motor racing") by people who then claim that the documents I quoted as reference were not valid as they were not generally available. Makes a nonsense out of everything we stand for.

I've also had 100-year-old photos taken down by "editors" as I had not got the photographer's permission to use them. The term "public domain" seems to be lost on such people.

[Terry Walker]

I suppose the root problem is that Motor Racing / Motor Sport History is not a University degree history category, there is no  academic-based "Journal of Motor Racing History Studies," no TV series with Lucy Worsley lookalike lisping authoritatively... lots of authoritative books, of course, but no academic framework. If there were, the original research being done here and in other historic forums would have reputable, quotable academic sources. And people have won Ph.D's on subjects of much less historic merit that whether the Silver Arrows were ever painted in the first instance. 

 

Time to lobby the University of London to create a chair of Motor Racing Studies... I vote Doug Nye as the first incumbent.

[D-Type]

I see that the 1933 Tripoli GP truth has now reduced to "Research suggests that the story is a popular myth." and the link to Don Capps's exposition is broken.

[Charlieman]

I suppose the root problem is that Motor Racing / Motor Sport History is not a University degree history category, there is no  academic-based "Journal of Motor Racing History Studies...

I daresay Don Capps might disagree. 

 

To some extent, contemporary and historical motorsport is discussed within academic frameworks. Prof Mark Jenkins at Cranfield School of Management researches how motorsport influences other high performance activities. And there's no reason why motorsport should not be the subject for a thesis in History of Science.

 

If I had £30,000 to donate as a research grant, I'd kick off an oral history project to capture memories of the less famous. I'd look for first hand stories from mechanics, race organisers and the like.

[Charlieman]

Wikipedia basically rewards the vomiting onto the Internet of whatever nonsense someone might find or think that they found from some source and pass it off as real or factual. For every accurate Wikipedia article, one gets the feeling that there are more than a few other articles that should be approached with some degree of caution.

We have to look at the history and aims of Wikipedia. It started off as some updated articles taken from out of copyright reference books alongside new articles contributed by volunteers with varying degrees of expertise. In the early days, content was biased towards topics that appealed to internet enthusiasts or youngish people with time on their hands -- a generalisation, of course. Some of the early articles about IT or contemporary culture were text book quality, others less so.

 

Today Wikipedia employs professional writers/reviewers to curate popular articles, which means that (random example) the Wikipedia biography of Raymond Chandler is based on the two dead tree biographies, newspaper articles and papers held at various libraries. A downside is that this creates a feedback loop -- popular articles receive attention which improves their quality and readership, highlighting the dismal quality of some volunteer-only contributions.

 

Wikipedia does not attempt to publish original research. A Wikipedia article is always a magpie assembly of facts derived largely from the internet. Check the references at the bottom of the page to determine quality!

[Michael Ferner]

No. Better ignore it right away.

[Ray Bell]

Something we agree on, Michael?

Here's how I started this thread almost twelve years ago:

Originally posted by Ray Bell
I hate it! Absolutely hate it!

You put the details of whatever it is you're searching into Google and up comes Wikipedia! And there's never just what you want there... never!

But it's always at the forefront of the Google selection, making you believe it has the answers. It doesn't...

[Jim Thurman]

I see that the 1933 Tripoli GP truth has now reduced to "Research suggests that the story is a popular myth." and the link to Don Capps's exposition is broken.

 

The link works for me, so perhaps it was only temporary?

[Jim Thurman]

Wikipedia basically rewards the vomiting onto the Internet of whatever nonsense someone might find or think that they found from some source and pass it off as real or factual. For every accurate Wikipedia article, one gets the feeling that there are more than a few other articles that should be approached with some degree of caution.

 

The main flaw being Wikipedia's insistence on using online sources. This means it is limited to, and by, what is available on the internet. This could be fine for many subjects, but when it comes to motorsports, particularly U.S. motorsports, much of what is online is nothing more than the previously printed errors, tall tales and folklore. This simply leads to further propogation. 

 

But, this is where Wikipedia often fails and falls on its own toy sword. They tout a consistent model and approach, yet remain wildly inconsistent. There are many print works cited. I've seen blog posts and message boards/forums cited. That means the messages we've made on these various forums setting the record straight should be eligible for citation. The most ridiculous and ludicrous errors are almost always without citation of any kind (which is the case in the entry on the 1971 NASCAR season Don quoted). 

 

On the positive side at Wikipedia, forum posts by Don and the late John Glenn Printz inspired one fellow to make changes to the AAA Championship history and AAA Contest Board entries that noted - and removed - the retroactively awarded Means/Haresnape championships promoted by Catlin. In this case, Wikipedia is more accurate than print sources, even official ones.

 

Which brings me to the final point. It's not even so much the "tug of war" aspect. That has only happened to me a couple of times. For me, the sense of futility comes from the fact that, despite any effort made, someone can go back and find the original error at some obscure website that copied the since removed passage at Wikipedia and "restore" it. For example, the ludicrous Dario Resta bit about him living in a small town he never lived in and building a track that didn't exist until 70+ years later. I've managed to get that removed from the original source, and at other responsible sites as well. However, other websites - some of which seem abandoned - that simply copied off the Wikipedia entry still have it. Which means it is possible, to likely, that it could be recycled back into the entry. As Abbot & Costello said: "First base!" 

[DCapps]

In essence and at its heart, Wikipedia is profoundly anti-intellectual in its insistence that expertise (knowledge) usually gained through academic inquiry, research, and its subsequent evaluation and interpretation is somehow highly inherently suspect, being the products of an educated, elitist "them." One of the first tasks in research is the review of the literature and a consideration and evaluation of the sources available. On this point alone, much of what is cited in Wikipedia articles should be considered either suspect or approached with caution, these sources warranting further study and evaluation. No need not dwell among the hallowed groves of Academe to understand and use those methods employed by the academic community in its pursuit of facts and its attempts to develop theories, laws or interpretations as appropriate.

 

As has been suggested beforehand, this fundamental flaw of Wikipedia becomes more apparent and readily evident as the level of knowledge and expertise for an area of interest becomes greater, as in what might be seen as niche or more narrow fields of interest.

 

At any rate, Wikipedia was founded with what might be thought of an "agenda" and one which still permeates much of the product.

[D-Type]

In a discussion I will sometimes refer to a Wikipedia article for convenience but I always qualify the reference with "Usual health warning applies" or a similar phrase.

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by Jim Thurman
.....As Abbot & Costello said: "First base!"

As one who is a stickler for accuracy, Jim, I'm sure you won't mind if I suggest that it's, "Who's on first!"

[Jim Thurman]

As one who is a stickler for accuracy, Jim, I'm sure you won't mind if I suggest that it's, "Who's on first!"

 

Ah, but at one point, several rounds into it, an exasperated Lou (with Bud) exclaims: "First base!" (as in, back to first base again).

Edited by Jim Thurman, 26 September 2018 - 17:32.

[Jim Thurman]

Digging further, in the case of the passage at Wikipedia on the 1971 NASCAR season cited by Don, it seems to have written by a Canadian. So, it seems to come down to simply an utter lack of knowledge and familiarity with the era or subject without any language issues.

[Jim Thurman]

Revisiting this to give a bit of a rundown. As the kids say, TIL (today I learned). Let's change the TIL, to Things I Learned on Wikipedia about U.S. racing:

 

Wendell Scott was the first African-American driver in NASCAR.

Joie Ray was the first African-American driver in NASCAR.

Jack McGrath died in a USAC race.

Walt Faulkner mainly competed in NASCAR, and died at a NASCAR race.

Billy Foster died in an accident during a NASCAR race.

Danny Oakes began his racing career in the 1930s at Ascot Park in Gardena.

Scott Dixon was the youngest winner in major U.S. open wheel racing history.

The Turkey Night Grand Prix is for sprint cars.

The Stardust GP Can-Am races held in Las Vegas were on the Caesars Palace circuit.

Willow Springs Raceway had one NASCAR race.

Jimmy Murphy was buried in Holy Cross Cemetery in Vernon, California.

Herman Schurch died at Ascot Park in Gardena.

Bob Carey died in Gardena, California after a crash at Ascot Park.

When Billy Arnold crashed during the 1932 Indianapolis 500, his riding mechanic Spider Matlock was killed.

Gary Patterson died in a USAC sprint car race

Greg Moore was the youngest Indycar winner in history.

Mike Mosley died in an off-road vehicle accident.

Manny Ayulo and Bill Vukovich looked amazingly alike.

Billy Scott, the drag racer and Indianapolis 500 starter, was featured in the book: "The World's Number One, Flat-Out, All-Time Great Stock Car Racing Book." 

Al Herman died when: "his car apparently caught fire as a result of the crash, and primitive or faulty restraints common to the era prevented his escape or removal from the vehicle in time to save his life." 

Dario Resta became an American citizen, moved to Bakersfield, California and created a small racing track at Buttonwillow, California that still exists as Buttonwillow Raceway Park.

Among notable drivers that competed in midget racing at Gilmore Stadium was Adolf Walker.

The film "Jalopy" (1953) had race scenes filmed at Ascot Park in Gardena, California.

George Robson moved to the U.S. in 1924, settling in Indiana.

NASCAR racer Ray Elder was a "road course ringer."

In Ed Elisian's fatal crash: "allegedly the other drivers failed to slow down in order to prevent fire fighters' effort to extinguish the flames."

 

The rest is simply errors on dates and names and the like. As you might have noticed, many don't realize the difference between Legion Ascot Speedway (1924-1936) and Ascot Park (1957-1990).

 

 

 

 

 

[RogerFrench]

It told me the 1961 British GP was won by Moss in the Ferguson P99.

[Alan Baker]

Wikipedia may have its faults but nowhere in either the article on the Ferguson P99 or The 1961 British Grand Prix does it claim that Moss won in that car.

[RogerFrench]

Alan Baker, look at the Ferguson TE20 article.

[Ray Bell]

The TE20 article?

You wouldn't expect an article written by farmers and tractor salesmen to have the facts about motor racing, would you?

[RogerFrench]

Shows the power of Wikipedia, any fule can rite wot he likes!

[Jim Thurman]

Another wonderful passage from Wikipedia, this one on Ernie Triplett:

 

"He was killed from injuries sustained in a dirt-car accident. His Wife, Annie remarried twice more to two other Nascar drivers; the first remarry also dying in a car accident while racing."

 

Language aside, his wife's name was Lillian. She did marry Bob Swanson, who died a midget accident in 1940, but there was no third racer, though I have seen/read this incorrect claim. NASCAR would not be formed until 1948, more than 7 years + some months after the death of Bob Swanson.

 

The only corrections to this wonderful passage? The person who wrote the above went in and corrected her name to Lil, and another helpful soul changed Nascar to NASCAR   

Edited by Jim Thurman, 09 January 2019 - 04:44.

[Tom Glowacki]

In essence and at its heart, Wikipedia is profoundly anti-intellectual in its insistence that expertise (knowledge) usually gained through academic inquiry, research, and its subsequent evaluation and interpretation is somehow highly inherently suspect, being the products of an educated, elitist "them." One of the first tasks in research is the review of the literature and a consideration and evaluation of the sources available. On this point alone, much of what is cited in Wikipedia articles should be considered either suspect or approached with caution, these sources warranting further study and evaluation. No need not dwell among the hallowed groves of Academe to understand and use those methods employed by the academic community in its pursuit of facts and its attempts to develop theories, laws or interpretations as appropriate.

 

As has been suggested beforehand, this fundamental flaw of Wikipedia becomes more apparent and readily evident as the level of knowledge and expertise for an area of interest becomes greater, as in what might be seen as niche or more narrow fields of interest.

 

At any rate, Wikipedia was founded with what might be thought of an "agenda" and one which still permeates much of the product.

"The Death of Expertise" by Tom Nichols, a professor at The Naval War College expands on the anti-intellectual aspect of Wikipedia, although Nichols says he like the movie reviews on it.

[Jim Thurman]

Another TIL on Wikipedia,

 

"Jerry Sneva (May 23, 1949 – January 27, 2018) was an American off-road driver from Spokane, Washington, who also drove in the USAC and CART Championship Car series."

 

My only guess as to how this happened was someone who didn't know any better saw a photo of one of the radical super modifieds campaigned by the Snevas, and thought it was an "off-road" racing vehicle    Yeesh!

[Jim Thurman]

And, the amazing passage in the entry of Wally Dallenbach:

 

"Dallenbach has been inducted into the Colorado Sports Hall of Fame, due to his exploits at the Pikes Peak International Hill Climb, the New Jersey Sports Hall of Fame, and the Pancake Lovers Guild of West Hanover Near the Tree That Looks Like Hayden Christensen."

 

That passage sat there for a while before someone flagged it, and it was removed and noted as: "vandalism."

[Charlieman]

Regarding Delaunay-Belleville at https://en.wikipedia...unay-Belleville:

 

"The company started with three models, all fours:^[5] a live axled 16 hp (12 kW; 16 PS) and a 24 hp (18 kW; 24 PS) and 40 hp (30 kW; 41 PS) model, both chain-driven.^[6]"

 

The author even linked to the page which explains the difference between tax horsepower and mechanical output...

 

"The fiscal power has found its way into naming of automobile models, such as the popular Citroën deux-chevaux. The cheval-vapeur (ch) unit should not be confused with the French cheval fiscal (CV)."

[Doug Nye]

For my wide-ranging tastes and interests, Wikipedia is very much improved these days compared to the early garbage it presented on almost every subject imaginable.  

 

Just be thankful for small mercies and - where it matters - double-check what it tells you.  

 

There's little profit surely in fulminating here about its manifest shortcomings, its policies seem unlikely to be changed by a handful of critics here - however expert or vocal they may be.  

 

Above all, whatever BS Wikipedia perpetuates it's not as if its inaccuracies will delay a cure for cancer...and I'd be pretty confident that the sun will still rise regardless tomorrow morning...  

 

DCN

[Jim Thurman]

I don't expect any policy changes, and there's no fulminating on my part. I'm simply noting and chronicling some of Wikipedia's failings on U.S. motorsports for posterity. One can react to them however they so choose, with outrage, bemusement or anything else really.

 

You know to double-check, I know to double-check, others know to double-check, but unfortunately, online research being the staple nowadays, so many errors from Wikipedia get copied at a multitude of websites (see reference to the Dario Resta entry as a prime example) and become a de facto fact by their sheer volume. They get falsely inserted into the historic record.

 

As for the last graf, it's not as if anything you, I, Don, Michael, or anyone else that has ever written in our chosen, little field - as appreciated as it might be by enthusiasts - is going to help with a cure for cancer or assist the sun in rising. Dare I mention that were the errors along the lines of Crystal Palace being an earlier name for Brands Hatch, or that Mike Hawthorne "was married to Diana Dors for a while," that it might rankle you a tad more?

 

EDIT: Also, please understand that the tone of this post is not as harsh as it may seem, but I chose not to use    , well, until here. 

Edited by Jim Thurman, 30 May 2019 - 18:50.

[Tim Murray]

We regularly come across similar nonsense relating to this side of the pond too, Jim. According to a review of Beatrice Shilling’s biography on this page, Brooklands was demolished during WW2:

Unfortunately but understandably, Brooklands was demolished during WWII as it stuck out like a sore thumb and would have made an ideal navigation reference point for German bombers.

[Vitesse2]

Which is of course a confusion with Crystal Palace, where the remaining tower was demolished - allegedly for that reason, although by the time any German bomber had got as far as that the layout of London would have been pretty bloody obvious!

 

Brooklands was actually very effectively camouflaged and only suffered a few raids - and none after it got a bunch of barrage balloons. There were other unsuccessful attacks - conveniently there's a very similarly sized and shaped reservoir on the other side of the railway line and the Luftwaffe apparently dropped several bombs in it!

[Sterzo]

Dare I mention that were the errors along the lines of Crystal Palace being an earlier name for Brands Hatch, or that Mike Hawthorne "was married to Diana Dors for a while," that it might rankle you a tad more?

 

I have decided to believe these statements henceforth. They are too good not to justify absolute faith.

[Jim Thurman]

I have decided to believe these statements henceforth. They are too good not to justify absolute faith.

 

They are more accurate than some things I've read as "fact" at Wikipedia.