Wikipedia - the thread

coasterqueenTRN's avatar
Drachen Fire was melted? ;)


matt.'s avatar
Since we got back onto this topic in the recent CP thread I thought I'd bump this just in case more conversation comes up and we can take it over here.
Is this the first or second version of Drachen Fire?

matt.'s avatar
^That's the original version with both corkscrews if that's what you mean.
If it bothers you that much, you could just fix it, you know? Or are you not capable?
matt.'s avatar
^I said in the other thread I'm working on it, but I'm just one guy. At this rate it's going to take me weeks just to fix grammar and simple spelling mistakes, never mind all the content problems.

You'd think if you were working on an encyclopedic article you'd at least do a spell check before you submitted. It's crazy to me.

I've only done a couple of quick edits to the SFA page, and the page for the Giant Coaster/Wild One. I don't know enough about other coasters/parks to feel confident about going in and messing with their pages. I use Wiki as a quick reference, and for links to other sites.
^How difficult is it to edit the wiki pages on any given topic? Don't you have to register somewhere first?
I'd say about 97% of 'mainstream' articles (newspapers, magazines) I've ever read about rollercoasters contains 1 or more inaccuracies. I don't know why we would expect Wikipedia to be any different.

I once commented on inaccuracies in the thread about a Tatsu special on Discovery channel (I'd link to the thread, but search seems to not be working). They made obvious mistakes describing some aspect of physics, and that's the freaking Discovery channel! People commented on how I should lay off pointing out these problems, it's just a coaster show.

But somehow, Wikipedia is supposed to be more accurate than a huge cable channel that's dedicated to learning?

matt.'s avatar
Well, Wikipedia is ostensibly written by people who really know what they're talking about. Or at least know how to use spell check. And more importantly if it isn't written by people who really know what they're talking about it should be reviewed and edited by those who do.

The "Discovery is inaccurate so it's ok for wikipedia to be inaccurate, too" is a lazy argument to begin with, but at least we have the power to change wikipedia, unlike a TV show or news article.

I mean again a lot of it is just lazy grammar and spelling mistakes. I'm working on it but the job is still pretty large.

The REAL question you should be asking yourself isn't "Why do the coaster pages in wikipedia have to be more accurate than Discovery," it should be "Why aren't the coaster pages in wikipedia more accurate than other sections of the site." I guess my only answer is the wrong people are working on it at the moment but hopefully I can contribute a bit and fix some of it. *** Edited 4/15/2007 7:20:24 PM UTC by matt.***

If it's on the internet, it must be true. Even if there's a totally contradictory statement somewhere else on the internet, both must be true. It's the internet after all.

^How difficult is it to edit the wiki pages on any given topic? Don't you have to register somewhere first?

For quick edits, no, but to do various other things, yes. And therein lies the problem. No way to really verify anything.

On the Intamin Wiki, Millennium Force's drop was incorrectly listed as 315 feet before I changed it. How many other obvious errors are floating around on there? I've learned to love Wikipedia because it's fun and fast. But If I would never use it as a viable source. A lot of my professors hate Wikipedia and would fail your paper if it was listed in your works cited for a paper.

"Life is like a roller coaster...enjoy it."
wikipedia CAN'T be reliable.. there's no entry for 'credit whore' :)

Craig.. care to author that one? ;)

"Life's What You Make It, So Let's Make It Rock!"

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2024, POP World Media, LLC