Wikipedia Article Errors - von Mellenthin

Discussions on books and other reference material on the WW1, Inter-War or WW2 as well as the authors. Hosted by Andy H.
User avatar
Qvist
Member
Posts: 7836
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 17:59
Location: Europe

#46

Post by Qvist » 09 Jan 2006, 12:21

Please keep this within the bounds of basic civility. Jon - several passages from your posts were removed, as they contained insults and language of a sort that is plainly unacceptable on this board. This should not be neccessary.

cheers

Jan-Hendrik
Member
Posts: 8695
Joined: 11 Nov 2004, 13:53
Location: Hohnhorst / Deutschland

#47

Post by Jan-Hendrik » 09 Jan 2006, 16:47

What is the worth of an article if nearly every detail that is given is definitly mistaken ? Wrong information are more dangerous than no information ...


And I think I have shown clearly why that is so ...


Jan-Hendrik


JonS
Member
Posts: 3935
Joined: 23 Jul 2004, 02:39
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

#48

Post by JonS » 09 Jan 2006, 21:40

I'm a 'glass is half full' kind of guy. Jan seems to be a 'glass is half empty' person, and even worse, the water is straight from the [gasp]tap[/gasp]*, of all things, not Perrier served 3°C below room temperature in a crystal tumbler.

As far as I'm concerned, the 503rd article is mostly okay. From Jans list, the only really serious error I see in the article is the implication that the 503rd was bottled up in Budapest and destroyed there in early 45. The rest? Eh. Sure, it's wrong, but it's wrong in the way that wearing striped trousers with a plaid shirt is wrong. It jars a bit if you're an SME, but for most people and most purposes it really doesn't matter.

In areas where I have a particular interest, or even - god forbid - some limited expertise, the Wiki pages aren't generally very useful to me. However, even then they usually have something of interest, or something I wasn't aware or sure of. I still read them though, for confirmatation or cross checking, but generally that's about all they are good for. Taking the case of the 503rd as an example - if I were creating a wargame scenario the 503rd Wiki page would be useful to me because it would confirm rough dates of when the unit was in particular theatres, countries, or locations, and especially because it also has useful TOE information.

I would expect that for most readers of these AHF forums, many of the Wiki pages dealing with WWII would have a similar level of usefulness. i.e., confirmation, cross checking, but not much in the way of new information. On the other hand Wiki articles on subjects I'm less au fait with, or haven't dealt with for a while - physics theories or numerical constants, statistical constructs, psychology, english lit, medicine - and for which I have a passing interest related to something else I'm doing, then those articles are generally helpful and very informative.

The same thing applies, of course, to the WWII pages. This may come as a shock to you guys, but there are plenty of people out there who only have a vague interest or knowledge in WWII. The level and quality of info in, again for example, the 503rd article is perfectly fine for their purposes. But you are, of course, still invited to correct and improve the articles where you feel qualified and competent to do so. It's not a closed shop, everyone can contribute. That's how the glass will eventually become full of top quality water.

Sure, on any given subject you could probably find better written, more informative, and more accurate webpages than the Wiki ones, but good luck finding them. The same thing, of course, applies to a print encyclopedia - any entry in Britannica (for example) will have a corresponding library of books that are better, more informative, and more indepth. If you can find them. And if you have the time, inclination, or motivation to read them. The advantage of an encyclopedia, or Wiki, of course is the broad range of subjects available at a glance. Wiki has the further advantage that they are all linked and grouped for easy surfing.

As a final point - when I was lecturing I would happily accept references to Wiki articles in submitted assignments as suplementary sources (assuming they met the other requirements of sources, of course). An information snob is still just a snob.

Oh, and Qvist. Dear Qvist. You sensitive yet humourless Euro. I trust the water and fashion analogies above are more to your liking than the previous one about Jan's lack of success with women? I also trust that you'll be editting posts contain gross stupidities that I had hoped would be unacceptable on this board. Personally, I find them offensive to read, and we wouldn't want anyone to be offended. [serious]Some of the posts on this forum display such breathtaking stupiditiy and cluelessness that it's a wonder that the authors can muster the coordination to breath and type at the same time. They are painful and distracting to read. Please fix or do somefink.[/serious]

Regards
JonS

* Cultural note: where I'm from tap water is plentiful, clean, free, and good to drink. I appreciate this is not the case in some undeveloped countries.
Last edited by JonS on 10 Jan 2006, 00:34, edited 8 times in total.

User avatar
Qvist
Member
Posts: 7836
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 17:59
Location: Europe

#49

Post by Qvist » 09 Jan 2006, 22:48

Oh, and Qvist. Dear Qvist. You sensitive yet humourless Euro. I trust the water and fashion analogies above is more to your liking than the previous one about Jans lack of success with women? I also trust that you'll be editting posts contain gross stupidities that I had hoped would be unacceptable on this board. Personally, I find them offensive to read, and we wouldn't want anyone to be offended. [serious]Some of the posts on this forum display such breathtaking stupiditiy and cluelessness that it's a wonder that the authors can muster the coordination to breath and type at the same time. They are painful and distracting to read. Please fix or do somefink.[/serious]
Well Jon, this really is not too complicated. You know the distinction between man and ball as well as anyone. Please observe it, because the next post that doesn't is not going to be left standing. There's no reason why you shouldn't be able to discuss Wikipedia without getting personal. And if you see a post you feel violate the guidelines you are, like everyone else, welcome to bring this to the attention of the moderators.

cheers

User avatar
Qvist
Member
Posts: 7836
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 17:59
Location: Europe

#50

Post by Qvist » 10 Jan 2006, 12:24

Pursuant to above warning, a further post by Jon S was removed. Please stick to the topic, which is not Jan-Hendrik.

cheers

Jan-Hendrik
Member
Posts: 8695
Joined: 11 Nov 2004, 13:53
Location: Hohnhorst / Deutschland

#51

Post by Jan-Hendrik » 10 Jan 2006, 16:40

Besides the Blabla that the Wiki-Articles are "useful" for "common people" , if people want to inform themselves about a particular topic they do not (in my opinion ) want to hav to recheck every simple piece of info . And that you must do if you work with Wiki . Senseless wasted time by doing more work than neccessary ...

And coming back to 503 , I only pointed out SOME mistakes , there are more included , even in the TOEs .

Jan-Hendrik

JonS
Member
Posts: 3935
Joined: 23 Jul 2004, 02:39
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

#52

Post by JonS » 10 Jan 2006, 21:30

Jan-Hendrik wrote:the Blabla that the Wiki-Articles are "useful" for "common people" ,
Blabla? That's you argument? Devastating. Truly devastating. I bow before you debating prowess. BTW, I'll have you know that I am a common person, and I find Wiki useful, despite it's faults. I find your use of " . . " marks offensive. Qvist - get on to it.
if people want to inform themselves about a particular topic they do not (in my opinion ) want to hav to recheck every simple piece of info . And that you must do if you work with Wiki . Senseless wasted time by doing more work than neccessary ...
Well d'uh. That's called research. As has been pointed out many, many times, Wiki is one possible start point, a very useful start point. But it isn't an end point, unless your research is only superficial. And, as has also been pointed out many many times, correcting articles is easy and encouraged. Bitching about something you can change with less effort than you've put in to this thread makes you look like a petulant and whiny spoilt child.

As an aside, if you have made changes which didn't survive in the marketplace of ideas, perhaps you need to look to yourself, rather than simplistically blaming the marketplace? As a sidebar to the aside - and this is meant in all seriousness to aid you in any future editting - Jan; your written English isn't very good. Either get someone to proof it before you submit it to Wiki, or expect it to be chopped about and changed.
And coming back to 503 , I only pointed out SOME mistakes , there are more included , even in the TOEs .
Well last time you said it was the most serious ( ! ) mistakes, so presumably you consider any others to be trivial or unimportant. I pointed out that I consider your list to be largely composed of the trivial anyway. For example: "Wah! Lt Schwarzes commanded that sub element, not Lt Weiß!", Well, so what? I mean ... really? How often is that really likely to matter? Someone who cares will know, everyone else will go "Oh, ok. A subaltern commanded a sub element for a while in Budapest", and promptly forget his name anyway. Plaid with stripes. It's wrong, but no one is going to die. And it's easy enough to change the shirt.

Regards
JonS

Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002, 15:12
Location: Europe

#53

Post by Andreas » 10 Jan 2006, 21:42

An OT post by JonS was removed.

All the best

Andreas

Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002, 15:12
Location: Europe

#54

Post by Andreas » 10 Jan 2006, 22:03

Okay, I am going to admit now that I have changed my mind since originally posting this thread, and I tend to agree with JonS now. While Wiki (like any Encyclopedia) is not that useful for someone who is already well-versed in the matter, it is a good starting point.

After using it a bit, I must say I like the way things are organised at Wiki, and the ease with which it is possible to share information there. Like moderators here, some people there in the Military History Project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... ry_history have taken it on themselves to monitor things a bit, and help polish up stuff.

In the end, I like the philosophy, after reading the fund-raiser appeal. I may change my mind if I get embroiled in an editing war, but that has yet to happen.

So here is one convert.

All the best

Andreas

PaulJ
Member
Posts: 82
Joined: 19 Nov 2005, 21:34
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

#55

Post by PaulJ » 20 Jan 2006, 05:20

Andreas,

There is another angle to arguments for not writing for Wikipedia: as Dr Johnson wrote "No man but a fool ever wrote but for money."

Why spend your finite amount of time and energy available for writing on military history doing it anonomously and unrewarded for Wikipedia? Of course, as my wife is constantly chiding me with, exactly the same argument applies to writing for fora like this...

Cheers,

paulj

Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002, 15:12
Location: Europe

#56

Post by Andreas » 31 Jan 2006, 18:58

PaulJ wrote:Andreas,

There is another angle to arguments for not writing for Wikipedia: as Dr Johnson wrote "No man but a fool ever wrote but for money."

Why spend your finite amount of time and energy available for writing on military history doing it anonomously and unrewarded for Wikipedia? Of course, as my wife is constantly chiding me with, exactly the same argument applies to writing for fora like this...

Cheers,

paulj
Your suggestion sounds good, but I already get paid for churning out two books a year at work, and I do this for relaxation. If I had to manage another publication process after hours, I'd shoot myself.

Maybe when I get another place to work where they don't expect me to show up :)

All the best

Andreas

Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002, 15:12
Location: Europe

#57

Post by Andreas » 01 Feb 2006, 15:50

It appears that at least some people get paid to work on Wikipedia entries:

http://news.com.com/2061-10796_3-6033082.html

All the best

Andreas

JonS
Member
Posts: 3935
Joined: 23 Jul 2004, 02:39
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

#58

Post by JonS » 01 Feb 2006, 22:55

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
Mohandas Gandhi

Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002, 15:12
Location: Europe

#59

Post by Andreas » 21 Mar 2007, 14:28

Well, after my Wikipedia experience, which ended about a year back or so, I have now revisited one of the controversial articles I did an editing job on, to see how it has changed.

Example

I must say that I am unimpressed. The information provided in the article now appears to me to be largely irrelevant, if not outright false, and completely misrepresenting the battle.

My text:
Despite this surprise, the attack was defeated with heavy losses by mid-day, and by the evening 5th Guards Tank Army had to go over to the defense. By 9:30, within 15 minutes of the attack commencing, Soviet 25th Tank Brigade had lost two-thirds of its tanks, and had to go over to the defense.


New text:
The attack was more than succesful. By 9:30, within 15 minutes of the attack commencing, German forces had lost more than two-thirds of their tanks, and had to retreat.
Of course, I could now engage in an edit war with the dimwit who made the changes back to Rotmistrov's version of the battle. But frankly, I think it is a waste of time, and this just confirms my initial suspicions of Wikipedia. It appears that it is only possible to ensure that information stays correct if one babysits the article for the rest of one's life. In conclusion, in my opinion Wikipedia is a waste of bandwith as far as our topic of military history is concerned, and I feel sorry to think that electricity is being wasted to keep its servers running.

All the best

Andreas

Post Reply

Return to “Books & other Reference Material”