Yip!Jump Board

General Discussion => Website Forum => Topic started by: Stress Records on August 21, 2008, 11:05:57 AM



Title: Question about Wikipedia
Post by: Stress Records on August 21, 2008, 11:05:57 AM
Are there any Wikipedia editors here?  I'm curious to know why the http://www.museumoflove.com link was removed from Wikipedia's Daniel Johnston page while other independent art galleries such as worriedshoes.com remain.  How would I go about asking someone at Wikipedia what happened?

Thanks,
Jeff


Title: Re: Question about Wikipedia
Post by: K1r0ft on August 21, 2008, 12:55:45 PM
Stress - you yourself should be able to edit and add it back where it belongs. Just click edit over to the right hand side.

 :^>


Title: Re: Question about Wikipedia
Post by: Stress Records on August 21, 2008, 01:32:56 PM
Stress - you yourself should be able to edit and add it back where it belongs. Just click edit over to the right hand side.

 :^>

Thanks - problem fixed! I didn't realize it was that easy. 


Title: Re: Question about Wikipedia
Post by: Rob Wheeler on August 27, 2008, 04:26:02 PM
Jeff, there is apparently a rule that prevents webmasters adding their own urls. I've been caught out on this before.

There are good things in the concept of Wikipedia but there are large bits of it I don't like. A couple of years ago I noticed a load of made up nonsense about one of my favorite radio presenters in his entry and I found myself in a war with the wally that had written it. I was constantly correcting it until I eventually found out there was an arbitration "cabal" on there that were supposed to deal with these things. So I put it to the cabal and they tried to mediate. However the wally was not having any of it, claiming he had a "right to free speech" and all the usual nonsense trolls come out with.

In the end I thought "whats the point" and gave up. In the back of my mind it niggled me, probably because I am a historian and I know the importance of integrity of sources and I hate the disinformation being spread about.

At the end of that year the subject of the article sadly passed away in a motor accident. I was quite annoyed when I saw several of the reports and obituaries, including the one broadcast by the station he had worked on at the time, quoting this nonsense which had obviously come straight from the Wikipedia article!

Another interesting rule is that you can not write any entries based on original research you have undertaken unless it has been published in print. So when I read the article on an individual on which I had done the first original research for some 30 years, noticed factual errors and added some of the basic arguments that I had added to the subject, some smarty pants know-it-all rejected it. Even when I pointed out I had written a legitimate academic paper on the subject and gave full references, they rejected it. Apparently a third party could do that, but not me. Yet the fellow who has read a ladybird book on the subject can reinforce the older research.

I know this is a general problem with encyclopedias but it annoyed me. Oh yes, and also all the revisions are preserved and are accessible all the time, so you can never erase a slander or gross wrong.

Anyway, that ends my wikipedia bashing for tonight.