Bulk carrier aground in the Minch

[Kukri]

The end of Kammi.

Very nice. Expensive, but a better system.

 

[Kukri]

There's a german wiki page for the Texaco Caribbean and the ship wrecks of 1971 page lists it and the subsequent events. Why not write a page? Anyone can contribute and edit stuff on Wikipedia, even idiots like me. It was certainly a catalyst for change, just like the Tenerife air disaster a few years later.

I once signed up to Wikipedia and edited the page on the loss of the Amoco Cadiz. I had been involved and knew a bit about it, so I added some details, citing references. These were gradually all edited out again. Since then I have concluded that life is too short to edit Wikipedia.

 

[mainsail1]

I once signed up to Wikipedia and edited the page on the loss of the Amoco Cadiz. I had been involved and knew a bit about it, so I added some details, citing references. These were gradually all edited out again. Since then I have concluded that life is too short to edit Wikipedia.

I too have found that information I have added has slowly been edited away even though my information was based on first hand experience. As you say, not worth the time.

 

[Bilgediver]

I’ve turned up for watch duties and found the skipper asleep on the bridge sofa!

Nothing unusual about that but is available on call to respond to the third mate watchkeeper..... Well that is how it was some years ago

 

[penfold]

I once signed up to Wikipedia and edited the page on the loss of the Amoco Cadiz. I had been involved and knew a bit about it, so I added some details, citing references. These were gradually all edited out again. Since then I have concluded that life is too short to edit Wikipedia.

The beauty of wikipedia is reverting to whatever you wrote is dead easy and entirely justified if it was referenced.

I too have found that information I have added has slowly been edited away even though my information was based on first hand experience. As you say, not worth the time.

Personal experience is problematic on wikipedia, they really want notability; you can put it in(I have) but if someone disagrees it's liable to be removed if not backed up by a reference.

 

[Kelpie]

All sources of information have errors. I don't think Wikipedia is any worse than other sources in that regard. I mean, look at what tabloids get away with printing...

 

[dgadee]

I once signed up to Wikipedia and edited the page on the loss of the Amoco Cadiz. I had been involved and knew a bit about it, so I added some details, citing references. These were gradually all edited out again. Since then I have concluded that life is too short to edit Wikipedia.

Same experience. The supervisors are told to require a source for information. You knowing it isn't viewed as sufficient basis.

Wikipedia is fab, though. I always donate when they ask.

 

[Stemar]

As with any source, you need to keep the critical facilities turned on, but I recall some tests done several years ago when people were getting sniffy about it - it turned out to have fewer errors of fact than the Encyclopaedia Britannica

 

[Kukri]

It seems that lots of us have had similar experiences.

I think there is a real problem here and it isn’t that Wikipedia often contains falsehoods. As Stemar says, it is usually accurate; taken over time it is nearly always accurate.

The problem is that the entries are, in the interest of accuracy, “pared down” so that only the bare minimum of information is provided.

 

[AntarcticPilot]

It seems that lots of us have had similar experiences.

I think there is a real problem here and it isn’t that Wikipedia often contains falsehoods. As Stemar says, it is usually accurate; taken over time it is nearly always accurate.

The problem is that the entries are, in the interest of accuracy, “pared down” so that only the bare minimum of information is provided.

The "No original research" rule can be a problem for those with unique specialist knowledge; also the rules about copyright on illustrations. I've fallen foul of both; my knowledge of Antarctic Geography is pretty good, but of course, it is MY knowledge, and often there isn't a citeable source, or if there is, I'm one of the authors! The result is that most of the pages in Wikipedia on Antarctic Geography use the USGS Antarctic Placenames database, which is good but omits a lot of stuff. The thing about copyright arises because many bodies wish to retain their copyright on a product so that they can share the profit if it is used for commercial purposes, but allow free use for non-commercial purposes PROVIDED the source was referenced. That is the case for the major geographic database of Antarctica (or was - it may have changed). Wikipedia would not use maps based on that source because it wasn't free for commercial use. This may have changed - I think they accept Creative Commons licenses, at least one of which closely parallels what we did.

The other annoying issue is that you can be challenged by someone with little knowledge and an axe to grind!

 

[westhinder]

MAIB Report Reveals Holes in Cargo Ship's Voyage Planning Process Before Grounding – gCaptain

 

[JumbleDuck]

The other annoying issue is that you can be challenged by someone with little knowledge and an axe to grind!

I'm alwasy suspicious of those wikipedia editors you read about how have edited thousands of articles. OK if they have only polished up the language, but I suspect that there are many basement dwellers making substantive changes to articles about things on which they know very little.

 

[AntarcticPilot]

I'm alwasy suspicious of those wikipedia editors you read about how have edited thousands of articles. OK if they have only polished up the language, but I suspect that there are many basement dwellers making substantive changes to articles about things on which they know very little.

The picture I have in my head is of spotty teenagers in basements in Arkansas, who base their opinions on the most recent documentary they've seen. And we all know that documentaries are always meticulously researched and absolutely correct, don't we? And those are the good ones - the bad ones get their opinions from "Weekly World News" or the like!

However, Wikipedia is, on the whole, a valuable resource - it has shortcomings, but so do more traditional sources. Like all resources, you should check it against what you already know, and if in doubt, follow some of the references up.

 

[dgadee]

The "No original research" rule can be a problem for those with unique specialist knowledge; also the rules about copyright on illustrations. I've fallen foul of both; my knowledge of Antarctic Geography is pretty good, but of course, it is MY knowledge, and often there isn't a citeable source, or if there is, I'm one of the authors! The result is that most of the pages in Wikipedia on Antarctic Geography use the USGS Antarctic Placenames database, which is good but omits a lot of stuff. The thing about copyright arises because many bodies wish to retain their copyright on a product so that they can share the profit if it is used for commercial purposes, but allow free use for non-commercial purposes PROVIDED the source was referenced. That is the case for the major geographic database of Antarctica (or was - it may have changed). Wikipedia would not use maps based on that source because it wasn't free for commercial use. This may have changed - I think they accept Creative Commons licenses, at least one of which closely parallels what we did.

The other annoying issue is that you can be challenged by someone with little knowledge and an axe to grind!

You need a Wikipedia page covering yourself. Then you can cite its contents/your views. I am too modest for that type of tactic.

 

[JumbleDuck]

You need a Wikipedia page covering yourself. Then you can cite its contents/your views. I am too modest for that type of tactic.

I'm mentioned on a Wikipedia page, but I don't have one of my own. I do, however have an IMDB page!

 

[penfold]

If your research is published then there's no reason not to cite it.

The "No original research" rule can be a problem for those with unique specialist knowledge; also the rules about copyright on illustrations. I've fallen foul of both; my knowledge of Antarctic Geography is pretty good, but of course, it is MY knowledge, and often there isn't a citeable source, or if there is, I'm one of the authors! The result is that most of the pages in Wikipedia on Antarctic Geography use the USGS Antarctic Placenames database, which is good but omits a lot of stuff. The thing about copyright arises because many bodies wish to retain their copyright on a product so that they can share the profit if it is used for commercial purposes, but allow free use for non-commercial purposes PROVIDED the source was referenced. That is the case for the major geographic database of Antarctica (or was - it may have changed). Wikipedia would not use maps based on that source because it wasn't free for commercial use. This may have changed - I think they accept Creative Commons licenses, at least one of which closely parallels what we did.

The other annoying issue is that you can be challenged by someone with little knowledge and an axe to grind!

 

[Deleted member 36384]

The picture I have in my head is of spotty teenagers in basements in ...

... George Heriots, Edinburgh. Many pages edited with false professor names and nonsense that read as if it was credible. All a wheeze until it was not.

 

[AntarcticPilot]

If your research is published then there's no reason not to cite it.

Yes, but if yours is the ONLY research cited, they can get a bit snotty. I worked in a very tiny field, - the number of people involved in mapping Antarctica is counted in low double figures; small enough that I knew the vast majority in person - and if you want to look at (say) the retreat of the Prince Gustav Ice Shelf, there's only one primary source, and I wrote it! It's cited in later work quite often, but the first compilation was mine. Same goes for all my colleagues - there are areas where they are the only person who has published anything at all.

 

[penfold]

Is it peer-reviewed? If it's published and nothing published is contradicting it then the snottiness is just that, sour grapes.

 

[AntarcticPilot]

Is it peer-reviewed? If it's published and nothing published is contradicting it then the snottiness is just that, sour grapes.

I wouldn't claim a publication that wasn't peer-reviewed. But I agree it isn't against Wikipedia's rules - but some editors don't like it. There are some remarkably petty people out there!