Cedar Points' Webcams Finally back up...

I noticed that the construction cam for Mav was down again, so now there is only the one that looks at it from a distance. I miss the good ol' days when there was three cams spread throughout the park.

I never said what I posted was true. Just interesting speculation.

---

Jason Hammond said:
And we all know how reliable Wikipedia is.

---

Although some articles in there may be fabricated a little...

Wikipedia.org is a very useful tool, and I'd have to go as far as to say about 90% or so of the information in there is reliable and factual (ones that are cited with refrences... which I see quite often).

In other words, it's a tool. Not a reference.

I made a thread dedicated to this, and a lot of coaster-related articles are beyond awful. Enjoy the Drachen Fire article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drachen_Fire

TheTruth...what part about "The webcams are undergoing maintenance" do you not understand?

Last year they had all three webcams working. All through the winter they had all three webcams working. All three cams will be up and working again as soon as they finish their routine maintenance.

Patience Grasshopper.

And just like tony said, they are not in their final position. So, maybe they have finished updating the software and are now in the process of relocating them. Either way, they will be up eventualy. It drives me nuts every time one or all of the cameras go down and people claim conspiricy. I'm suprised at how little downtime they have considering how many problems computers could have. It wasn't that long ago when there were No cameras. We should all be grateful they have any at all.

I see nothing major wrong with Wikipedia's article on Drachen Fire.

-Nate

^^ And just maybe the webcams will be placed in new locations for an absolute picture. A nice view of the themeing that has been worked on with such accomplishment and pride.

Now, I cannot believe the excitment for this new attraction is not bursting out of my monitor. This ride is going to be beautiful. Forget the ride itself and the thrill of it, Maverick is going to be visually impressive and even more breathtaking to observe and analyze. I'm going with two thumbs up before the opening day, because I think its going to leave a remarkable impression on everyone hands down.

---

coasterdude318 said:
I see nothing major wrong with Wikipedia's article on Drachen Fire.

---

Both paragraphs under "history" are collections of speculation and rumor by the author with no sources or citation.

The rest of it is really lacking in any sources or citation, too, except for one mention of Larry Giles.

It's a real diservice to the coaster community when half-truths and complete fabrications and compilations of popular rumors and urban myths make into articles which are supposedly factual and authoritative.

I've registered on Wikipedia so hopefully I can get some of this stuff changed, back on topic now please. *** Edited 4/14/2007 12:33:03 PM UTC by matt.***

But it's a prevalant rumor, and one that (at least as far as I'm concerned) has never been adaquately proven OR disproven. The Wikipedia article clearly states that it's speculation and rumor, so what's the problem? The option not to include it seems just as problematic, since then the article would be blatantly ignoring a large part of what makes that particular ride so interesting.

Also please note that the article DOES link to an article on http://history.amusement-parks.com that does seem to back up the B&M connection. Whether you consider them to be an accurate source is your call, but I personally do.

-Nate

http://en.pediax.org/Wikipedia:Verifiability

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."

In other words unless it comes from a verifiable, authoritative source, it shouldn't be included. At the very least the rumors shouldn't be included under a section called "History" because it's really the exact opposite of that. Your point that the rumor/speculation hasn't been proven or disproven is completely moot - the burden of evidence is on whoever posted the material.

If you want to continue this further, dig up the old thread or start a new one, because I'd really rather not make this look like I'm trying to derail the thread. The bottom line is whether or not the rumors are "interesting" doesn't matter, it's not the sort of thing that goes in an encyclopedia under "history."

I'll leave it at this from the same link:

"Be careful not to err too far on the side of not upsetting editors by leaving unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people. Jimmy Wales has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."

That's as absolutely clear cut as it gets.

Final edit - I bumped the thread in case we want to continue this further over there. *** Edited 4/14/2007 9:04:32 PM UTC by matt.***

Perhaps you should be posting this stuff in a thread about wikepedia.

Has anyone else noticed that the only currently "working" web cam hasn't really refreshed for a few days? It's been the same image with no changes in light or shadow at all. *** Edited 4/19/2007 11:41:25 AM UTC by RollerCoastin!!!!***

^Read the post next time.

^^My capture program has not downloaded anything in a couple days. It is an archived image.