Do they accept eyewitness reports?
According to the rules, they don´t (at least not as 'facts', but sometimes maybe as 'receptions'). And even whether enbalmed or not doesn´t matter. That is a general thing, because the idea is an encyclopedia to bring together the general knowledge of the world (and not only motosport history), an not a platform for personal memories, anecdotes or even co-operative research (like TNF). It is simply a completely different concept for a completely different purpose, therefore necessarily different rules. Or to say, if it worked like TNF who would need TNF?
And if you take a second thought about that, and maybe you forget about motorsport for a moment, I am sure you will understand that it has to be this way. For example if you are looking for informations about possibly controvesial and sometimes quite 'sensitive' matters - like medizine, political parties, religions, ideologies or inter-state conflicts - I am sure you will appreciate it when the information you get is based upon established 'research' rather than on personal opinions of maybe some exotic outsiders. Even in motorsport, from my personal experience, it is always extremely risky to rely on eyewitness testimonies. The more respectable the person, the more problematic sometimes, as maybe they are not used to any form of 'scientific' cristicism. As my old history teacher told us, the task is to work out the difference between 'stories' and 'history'.
But back to wikipedia. If a subject ist regarded controversely then wikipedia sees its task to give the reader a neutral description of what is state-of-the-art research, but also to point out what different opinions are existing. The intention is not to 'make' opinions but to 'present' the opinions and also to sum up what seems to be the 'accepted' knowledge. For that they can only rely on 'approved' and generally accessable sources and nothing else.
Of course this leads into a lot of conflicts and also more than once existing articles do not meet the intended standards, but who can claim to be perfect? Instead the idea is, to get a little bit better with every contribution. To my own experience, if you show engagement to improve the content, take your time for the debate and use well-founded arguments - ideally based on publically accessable sources - then you usually find good solutions in the end. Because it is an open platform you may come into dispute with some destructive characters, but maybe you find also such people in TNF. And at least in the German wikipedia I can show you examples of some really excellent elaborations. Yes, admittedly, it needed some common effort to make the community aware of motorsport before and outside of Formula 1, but in the meantime it is absolutely accepted standard for example to use 'automobile world championship' instead of 'formula 1 world championship' (with 1952/53 and Indianapolis in mind) and now there are also steadily growing articles about every Grand Prix season before 1950.
Finally, a last statement. If you dig out some of the very old TNF threads you will perhaps recognize, that not everything, what seems now so much obvious to us, was not necessarily common knownledge in the beginning. But nobody was made ridiculous if he made a wrong statement or asked a 'wrong' question. Rather, the effort was, to get things corrected as good as possible and to work out the truth behind the myths. Since then a lot of things have been found out here, but I think it would be a little bit arrogant to expect the whole rest of the world to follow TNF. Rather, if we are really interested in correct information, we must actively spread the message...
Edited by uechtel, 27 January 2018 - 14:04.