Aichi D1A Susie in Wikipedia

[Alikchi2]

People seem to forget that the converse is true. Errors that appear in a written encyclopedia stay errors forever (at least until another edition is released). And written encyclopedias aren't put under peer review by the entire world.

[WhoCares]

Let me quote myself, as I posted in another forum on the same topic[:D]

...
I don't think Wikipedia is any more or less reliable then other sources of similar scope, on the web or outside. Neither are well-respected and qualified authors with their sources safe of error: Link: Example
And as few of us have access to the Operational Archives of the Naval Historical Center in the Washington D.C. Navy Yard or some japanese sources, whom would you trust in this case, two accounts explicitly and in deep detail writing only about this battle or a book where the battle is just a small part and the collision a minor detail?! Do you actually trust the author of the linked article?! Or will you not cease before reading the quoted books and dig through the various archives on your own - probably better board a time maschine and check it out all on your own [:'(]

I don't know how you see it, but I'd always prefer a Wikipedia entry over a random Google hit. With a Google hit I would have to go on and verify author and sources, while with Wikipedia chances are high that somebody has done that already.

Just out of curiosity the errors you have seen, of which nature are they: false statements (not from vandalization!), generalizations and/or omissions? I'd expect the first one to be rare, while the latter two are just common nature for the scope of an encyclopedia...

I guess in an estimation of 'quality of information'/'effort to get the information' Wikipedia can't be bet.

[Nikademus]

Mike seems to have gleaned the true meaning behind my statement. I probably should have been more clear. I was not intending to imply that everything posted to this "Wiki" was crap by default but I was amazed that there was no proof-reading/peer review process in place allowing virtually anything outside of something blatent like pornographic material, to be posted on a subject. Its one reason why i prefer accredited book sources that have been peer reviewed vs. google.com which is not to say that there isn't alot of good info out there on the net but you have to be careful. Wiki sounds like an interesting experiment but given the Suzi "incident" i'd always approach it with a grain of salt, at least where "history," that most manipulable of subjects, is concerned.

[DuckofTindalos]

Salt is always a good addition to your diet, regardless of what you're looking at online, Wiki or not...

[Nikademus]

GASP! its da SPAMer for Denmark!

[DuckofTindalos]

Oh no... Run! Hide the kids! Lock up the livestock!

[Nikademus]

Obviously we have not acheived world domination through the franchising of McDonalds worldwide. The SPAMers still thrive.....in Denmark.

[Big B]

On Wikipedia and the Aichi DiA:


Without offending anyone's sensibilities, I have a question regarding the article.
Though framed in controversial terms - was the information on the Susie substantially incorrect?

Just curious.

B

[WhoCares]

Just for a little heads-up with respect to the original topic, the article has been changed a couple of times since Alikchis changes (colored notes by me): Link: History

(cur) (last) 05:28, 23 March 2006 Emt147 (rv - unacceptable, offensive text, please do not reinstate)
(cur) (last) 05:17, 23 March 2006 66.251.105.47 ('Re-vandalized')
(cur) (last) 19:38, 22 March 2006 Emt147 (rv -- the text is absolutely unacceptable. Start over and write something encyclopedic and NPOV) (Link: User Emt147)
(cur) (last) 12:53, 22 March 2006 66.251.105.47 ('Re-vandalized')
(cur) (last) 08:53, 21 March 2006 70.189.89.95
(cur) (last) 08:53, 21 March 2006 70.189.89.95 (Removed huge vandalized text) (Alikchi)

So you see that the article has gotten the attention of someone who monitors articles in his field of interest and it took him only 11 minutes to revert the last manipulation. Close enough to a peer-review, I'd say.
Regarding sources and references, many Wikipedia articles are backed up or extended by external links and book references, so if you are looking for further, more in-depth information, Wikipedia articles can also offer a good start.


PS: While writing this post, the D1A article got 're-vandalized' again; the IP indicates the same user [8|]

[Nikademus]

oh my......

too funny. [8|]

[mlees]

ORIGINAL: Big B

On Wikipedia and the Aichi DiA:


Without offending anyone's sensibilities, I have a question regarding the article.
Though framed in controversial terms - was the information on the Susie substantially incorrect?

Just curious.

B

Ummm, I saw very little info on the plane itself. 95% of the article in post #1 was about Japanese wartime activities in China.

When I search info by model aircraft in a "reference" scource, I am usually looking for performance data. There is absolutely none of that there...

[visionstealer]

ORIGINAL: Bait Boy

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

lol.....i've seen a number of threads posting links to this "Wiki" along with terms such as "See? this proves it!!!"

Now i know not to bother clicking on them. [;)]

A study was done comparing Wiki to Encyclopedia Britannica. Encyclopedia Britannica won but not by much.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a ... 80410/1012

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/23 ... ure_study/

This article states that the study was cooked in favor of Wikipedia.