Author Topic: The Wikipedia Fact Check Thread!  (Read 5049 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Rob Lightbody

  • Administrator
  • Queens Grill Diner
  • *****
  • Posts: 6190
  • Total likes: 78
  • Helping to Keep The Legend Alive
    • Rob Lightbody dot com
The Wikipedia Fact Check Thread!
« on: Feb 24, 2009, 07:45 PM »
Well can you see any errors or obvious omissions?  If so, lets get it sorted!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QE2


Passionate about QE2 for over 30 years.

Offline Twynkle

Re: The Wikipedia Fact Check Thread!
« Reply #1 on: Feb 24, 2009, 08:56 PM »
24th February 1978 - Maiden call to Sydney
31 years ago today!
QE2 has been waiting alongside in Dubai for over 2103 days...or 5 years, 9 months, and many days more - she needs to be earning her keep....

Offline Isabelle Prondzynski

Re: The Wikipedia Fact Check Thread!
« Reply #2 on: Feb 26, 2009, 09:39 AM »
Well can you see any errors or obvious omissions?  If so, lets get it sorted!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QE2

Just a quick first reaction : This article has grown and changed hugely over the past two months! I can see at least one familiar name among the recent editors...  :)

Shall take it with me, on my next shore excursion this week-end, when I shall be sitting around computerless here and there, and shall enjoy the good read!

Offline Kindlychap

Re: The Wikipedia Fact Check Thread!
« Reply #3 on: Feb 27, 2009, 08:30 PM »
The date given for when she became the longest serving Cunarder is wrong. September 4th, 2005, when she was at Sydney. I was on board that day. The photograph in my signature is of the same day...

I think the date and ship referred to relates to longest serving express liner.

Matthew
« Last Edit: Feb 27, 2009, 08:35 PM by Kindlychap »
RMS Queen Elizabeth 2 - Sic Transit Gloria Mundi

Offline Isabelle Prondzynski

Re: The Wikipedia Fact Check Thread!
« Reply #4 on: Mar 02, 2009, 01:48 AM »
Had a look at the Wikipedia article, and it looks largely correct (but I am not yet sufficiently knowledgeable to check many of the numerous facts  ??? ). Problem is that so many hands have been involved in writing it, that it does not read all that well, and in places is not up to date. But that is not necesarily our problem!

Offline Rob Lightbody

  • Administrator
  • Queens Grill Diner
  • *****
  • Posts: 6190
  • Total likes: 78
  • Helping to Keep The Legend Alive
    • Rob Lightbody dot com
Re: The Wikipedia Fact Check Thread!
« Reply #5 on: Mar 22, 2009, 03:20 PM »
Nowhere in the Wikipedia article does it say that she's travelled further than any  other ship ever.  This doubt is beyond doubt, because of her speed and length of service.  I think it should be right at the top, in the introduction piece, in paragraph 3.  Can someone more skilled in wikipedia than me make the change?  (I find it a real struggle and anything I edit gets removed immediately by the Wikipedia police).

It also has an error.  It says she travelled over 6 million miles, whereas it was just under... the exact figure was given in the last onboard daily programme.
Passionate about QE2 for over 30 years.

Offline Stowaway2k

Re: The Wikipedia Fact Check Thread!
« Reply #6 on: Mar 22, 2009, 05:09 PM »
As we all know, anybody can register to be a Wikipedia "editor", and add relevant information to any listings.

I don't know if it still is so much anymore, but the QE2 Wikipedia page was once the jealously guarded playground of a single individual, so goes the scuttlebutt within the QE2 community.

Entries by other persons which were within Wikipedia's conditions were almost always quickly deleted by this person, as they seemed to believe that the QE2 page belonged to them alone.

From what I understand, "turf battles" are not uncommon on Wikipedia.

As Gore Vidal once famously said...  "There's nothing true on Wikipedia" 

but that's not really true either...

Offline pete cain

Re: The Wikipedia Fact Check Thread!
« Reply #7 on: Mar 22, 2009, 07:31 PM »
Dear Rob,have been searching the web & me books for info 'bout Wilki ommissions (still looking) & you know how it is ... you end up miles away from where you started & it's 1/2 hour later, however I came across The Cunard Queens the most iconic liners in the world ; on Google . Lo & behold there's a 3d artists impression of the new one, looks (to me) like a cross between a Costa & vikki, pretty boring stuff I know but it's the 1st outside view i've seen of the proposed 'icon'. in case anybody is interested, pete cain....

Offline Mauretania1907

Re: The Wikipedia Fact Check Thread!
« Reply #8 on: Mar 23, 2009, 08:21 AM »
Aha, now I know why, when I tried to print out QE2 off wikipedia, I got 3 blank pages in my printout, even tho the info was on the site. Peeved me off, since I was at Uni, using their printer which is far superior to mine. Guess I'm not the only one with a collection of QE2 stuff.

Offline Rob Lightbody

  • Administrator
  • Queens Grill Diner
  • *****
  • Posts: 6190
  • Total likes: 78
  • Helping to Keep The Legend Alive
    • Rob Lightbody dot com
Re: The Wikipedia Fact Check Thread!
« Reply #9 on: Jun 02, 2009, 10:21 PM »
Quote
and never ran a weekly transatlantic express service to New York as did previous large Cunarders

What do you think that means?  She did, surely?  or do they mean she ran it more often than weekly?
Passionate about QE2 for over 30 years.

Offline Twynkle

Re: The Wikipedia Fact Check Thread!
« Reply #10 on: Jun 02, 2009, 10:52 PM »
Not too sure what it means!

Have you tried clicking on the top External Link - 'Official QE2 website'- 
bottom left of QE2 Wiki page?
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Queen_Elizabeth_2

Hmm.

 
« Last Edit: Jun 02, 2009, 11:04 PM by Twynkle »
QE2 has been waiting alongside in Dubai for over 2103 days...or 5 years, 9 months, and many days more - she needs to be earning her keep....

Offline Rob Lightbody

  • Administrator
  • Queens Grill Diner
  • *****
  • Posts: 6190
  • Total likes: 78
  • Helping to Keep The Legend Alive
    • Rob Lightbody dot com
Re: The Wikipedia Fact Check Thread!
« Reply #11 on: Jul 01, 2010, 02:04 PM »
Do we have anyone on (the) board who is a whizz with wikipedia - e.g. editing/adding/deleting stuff ?

I would like to revise the QE2 page as I think its a mess.
Passionate about QE2 for over 30 years.

Online Peter Mugridge

  • Queens Grill Diner
  • *****
  • Posts: 1847
  • Total likes: 14
  • At Mach 2 three days after being on QE2...
Re: The Wikipedia Fact Check Thread!
« Reply #12 on: Jul 01, 2010, 02:50 PM »
I know someone who has full editing privileges at wikipedia; shall I ask him to mail you, Rob?
"It is a capital mistake to allow any mechanical object to realise that you are in a hurry!"

Offline Chris

Re: The Wikipedia Fact Check Thread!
« Reply #13 on: Jul 02, 2010, 01:55 AM »
Anyone can edit the Wikipedia pages, however there are some people who have more control than others.
For QE2 it seems a person by the name of "MBK004" controls most of the page. From reviewing the "discussion" and edits, it seems that user is the reason she is referred to as RMS, for example.

Chris.

Offline Rob Lightbody

  • Administrator
  • Queens Grill Diner
  • *****
  • Posts: 6190
  • Total likes: 78
  • Helping to Keep The Legend Alive
    • Rob Lightbody dot com
Re: The Wikipedia Fact Check Thread!
« Reply #14 on: Jul 02, 2010, 09:24 AM »
I would like to correct the RMS thing firstly and foremost and from then we'll just try to correct the mistakes.

'Flagship' answered the question definitively on here - she is not an RMS, and never was. He refers to original documentation that states this and explains why.

http://www.theqe2story.com/forum/index.php/topic,1392.msg15309.html#msg15309
« Last Edit: Jul 02, 2010, 11:24 AM by Isabelle Prondzynski »
Passionate about QE2 for over 30 years.

richc1977

  • Guest
Re: The Wikipedia Fact Check Thread!
« Reply #15 on: Jul 03, 2010, 02:02 PM »
I did try and add my website and virtual tour on that page in the links section but it disappeared within a minute.

"Someone" has a preset idea on how that page should be and you're all right, it is a mess.  But "they" probably won't let you change it.

Why is there such a pre-occpation with her name that it warrants such a big section?  it's longer than the technical section which is much more significant.

And the order of things is just all over the place. 

Online Peter Mugridge

  • Queens Grill Diner
  • *****
  • Posts: 1847
  • Total likes: 14
  • At Mach 2 three days after being on QE2...
Re: The Wikipedia Fact Check Thread!
« Reply #16 on: Jul 03, 2010, 03:55 PM »
Mesaage from the Wiki editor I mentioned ( I sent him the link to this thread )


Dear Peter,
Please post the following on my behalf.

It's great that members of this forum wish to improve the QE2 article. The article is currently unprotected so it is not necessary to create an account to edit the article, although doing so is free and carries certain advantages. I note that fellow Wikipedian MBK004 has been mentioned as "owning" the article. No editor "owns" an article, but ensuring that edits made to an article meet various policies on Wikipedia is not "ownership", nor is reverting edits made in good faith, but which fall foul of various policies, or the reversion of vandalism. Like myself, (Mjroots), MBK004 is an Administrator on Wikipedia.

Anyone wishing to edit Wikipedia would do well to read the various pages linked from Wikipedia's Welcome Notice, which explain a lot about what Wikipedia is and what it is not. Any proposed major changes to an article should be discussed on that articles talk page first to see what the consensus is. Discussion can also take place at the Wikiproject talk page. Any questions please ask on my Wikipedia talk page and I'll try my best to answer them.

Welcome Notice - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Welcome
What Wikipedia is not - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT
Wikiproject Ships - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SHIPS
My user page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mjroots
My talk page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mjroots

Michael Roots.
"It is a capital mistake to allow any mechanical object to realise that you are in a hurry!"

Offline Rob Lightbody

  • Administrator
  • Queens Grill Diner
  • *****
  • Posts: 6190
  • Total likes: 78
  • Helping to Keep The Legend Alive
    • Rob Lightbody dot com
Re: The Wikipedia Fact Check Thread!
« Reply #17 on: Jul 04, 2010, 02:42 PM »
Ok. Thanks for that information. Here's my suggestion. We take one problem or mistake at a time and open a topic here to discuss it. we nominate ONE person to then go to the page's discussion to get the agreement to change it. I suggest we start with the RMS issue. QE2 was never RMS and i'd like to correct this then move onto the next problem. Michael Gallagher has posted here with proof and explanation.

http://www.theqe2story.com/forum/index.php/topic,1392.msg15309.html#msg15309
« Last Edit: Jul 04, 2010, 11:54 PM by Isabelle Prondzynski »
Passionate about QE2 for over 30 years.

Online Peter Mugridge

  • Queens Grill Diner
  • *****
  • Posts: 1847
  • Total likes: 14
  • At Mach 2 three days after being on QE2...
Re: The Wikipedia Fact Check Thread!
« Reply #18 on: Jul 04, 2010, 02:59 PM »
I would suggest that when submitting things for discussion that a link be provided to the relevant thread on here, especially where documentary evidence has been posted.  Should make things a lot easier to prove.
"It is a capital mistake to allow any mechanical object to realise that you are in a hurry!"

Offline Chris

Wikipedia Message to the forum : The Wikipedia Fact Check Thread!
« Reply #19 on: Jul 07, 2010, 10:10 AM »
Saw this today on the QE2 Article Discussion Page:

Quote
Message for members of TheQE2story forum

Thanks for your interest in improving the article. Hopefully Peter will post a message on my behalf to you there. The most important thing for you to remember is that we do not accept original research on Wikipedia. All info added should be verifiable and sources quoted. Use {{cite web}} for website (but NOT forums, which are not reliable sources, but may provide links to such sources), {{cite book}} for books, {{cite newspaper}} for newspapers and {{cite journal}} for magazines. Any questions please feel free to ask on this section of the talk page. Mjroots (talk) 08:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

    Well, I see you guys haven't posted yet, but if you do, we are still watching this page. :-) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


Online Peter Mugridge

  • Queens Grill Diner
  • *****
  • Posts: 1847
  • Total likes: 14
  • At Mach 2 three days after being on QE2...
Re: The Wikipedia Fact Check Thread!
« Reply #20 on: Jul 07, 2010, 01:09 PM »
I wonder why Wiki don't accept original research?  You would have thought that stuff from genuine contemporary documents would be exactly what they'd need wouldn't you?  I'll have to ask him about that...


Meanwhile, Rob, have you noticed the constant influx of guests since that went up on the Wiki page?
« Last Edit: Jul 07, 2010, 03:43 PM by Peter Mugridge »
"It is a capital mistake to allow any mechanical object to realise that you are in a hurry!"

Offline Twynkle

Re: The Wikipedia Fact Check Thread!
« Reply #21 on: Jul 07, 2010, 05:05 PM »
I wonder why Wiki don't accept original research?  You would have thought that stuff from genuine contemporary documents would be exactly what they'd need wouldn't you?  I'll have to ask him about that...

Peter -
Theoretically speaking, doesn't any any proper research based factual information need peer reviewing prior to publication?
When this is the case, then wouldn't you agree that if Wiki to allows random citations from Magazines and Newspapers it will automatically devalue the validity of information gathered from these sources?
Newspaper reports can be misleading, as can articles in magazines etc etc.
Isn't it somewhat surprising that these can be used as 'verifiable proof of facts' on the Wiki site?

Therefore wouldn't it seem more appropriate for Rob's researched site 'The QE2 Story', and Sam Warwick's site 'QE2' together with the researched and published factual literature and importantly, the archives to be regarded as sole authentic sources of information regarding QE2?
Wouldn't 'the rest' be deemed to be 'experiential', therefore subjective?  Although it will be historical, it may or may not be factual.
Rosie

[PS. As Wikpedia describes itself as an encyclopedia, here are some definitions!!
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&defl=en&q=define:encyclopedia&sa=X&ei=Z6w0TKSAMJm60gTw3PSbAw&ved=0CB4QkAE  ]
 
« Last Edit: Jul 07, 2010, 05:39 PM by Twynkle »
QE2 has been waiting alongside in Dubai for over 2103 days...or 5 years, 9 months, and many days more - she needs to be earning her keep....

Online Peter Mugridge

  • Queens Grill Diner
  • *****
  • Posts: 1847
  • Total likes: 14
  • At Mach 2 three days after being on QE2...
Re: The Wikipedia Fact Check Thread!
« Reply #22 on: Jul 07, 2010, 05:30 PM »
By "genuine contemporary documents" I was thinking about the stuff in Flagship's (ware)house.
"It is a capital mistake to allow any mechanical object to realise that you are in a hurry!"

Offline Rob Lightbody

  • Administrator
  • Queens Grill Diner
  • *****
  • Posts: 6190
  • Total likes: 78
  • Helping to Keep The Legend Alive
    • Rob Lightbody dot com
Re: The Wikipedia Fact Check Thread!
« Reply #23 on: Jul 07, 2010, 05:46 PM »
I'm away just now with limited internet access. Brief reply. The 'forum' was never to be the source/proof for any suggested changes. All changes will be backed up with evidence. However it is important to note that Some of the members here WROTE the books that are quoted already on the QE2 article.
Passionate about QE2 for over 30 years.

Offline Rob Lightbody

  • Administrator
  • Queens Grill Diner
  • *****
  • Posts: 6190
  • Total likes: 78
  • Helping to Keep The Legend Alive
    • Rob Lightbody dot com
Re: The Wikipedia Fact Check Thread!
« Reply #24 on: Jul 08, 2010, 09:03 PM »
I've read the discussion page on the article - and it is interesting.  It will be good to co-operate on making some changes.

The authors of most of the books written about QE2 over the past 15 years or more have used, referrred to, and acknowledged Michael Gallagher of Cunard who is 'flagship' on this forum - Michael has worked at Cunard for decades and I and many others consider him to be possibly the greatest expert on QE2 that there is.  His knowledge, combined with his enormous archive of QE2 material, in my view actually make him a 'RS' but from reading the guidance this does not look acceptable, which is a shame.  Anything Michael tells me I have always taken as gospel, and continue to do so.  What he tells us here is not opinion, or his views, its fact.

So - for instance - when he tells me that QE2 was never an RMS (and explains why) - I know it is a fact.  Its just a case of finding in which book he has helped the author write it down!

- Rob.
Passionate about QE2 for over 30 years.

Offline Chris

Re: The Wikipedia Fact Check Thread!
« Reply #25 on: Jul 09, 2010, 02:14 AM »
The Wikipedia mods have posted further messages in "discussion" and very kindly asked for our help.

The tricky bit really is the rules so agree it's best to discuss edits with the Wiki mods in the discussion page before investing lots of time editing the pages, just to save everyone time.

Chris. 

Online Peter Mugridge

  • Queens Grill Diner
  • *****
  • Posts: 1847
  • Total likes: 14
  • At Mach 2 three days after being on QE2...
Re: The Wikipedia Fact Check Thread!
« Reply #26 on: Jul 09, 2010, 10:40 AM »
Where is the "discussion" page anyway?  I can only find the public article linked in the OP on this thread?
"It is a capital mistake to allow any mechanical object to realise that you are in a hurry!"

Offline Rob Lightbody

  • Administrator
  • Queens Grill Diner
  • *****
  • Posts: 6190
  • Total likes: 78
  • Helping to Keep The Legend Alive
    • Rob Lightbody dot com
Re: The Wikipedia Fact Check Thread!
« Reply #27 on: Jul 09, 2010, 11:24 AM »
Where is the "discussion" page anyway?  I can only find the public article linked in the OP on this thread?
There are 'tabs' at the top of the article page - you can change them to read the discussion.
Passionate about QE2 for over 30 years.

Online Peter Mugridge

  • Queens Grill Diner
  • *****
  • Posts: 1847
  • Total likes: 14
  • At Mach 2 three days after being on QE2...
Re: The Wikipedia Fact Check Thread!
« Reply #28 on: Jul 09, 2010, 11:33 AM »
Found it now, thanks Rob.
"It is a capital mistake to allow any mechanical object to realise that you are in a hurry!"

Offline Rob Lightbody

  • Administrator
  • Queens Grill Diner
  • *****
  • Posts: 6190
  • Total likes: 78
  • Helping to Keep The Legend Alive
    • Rob Lightbody dot com
Re: The Wikipedia Fact Check Thread!
« Reply #29 on: Jul 09, 2010, 12:32 PM »
I cant work out how to post onto their discussion page.

HOWEVER

Before we go there, I'd like to take each point here and make sure we're clear about it, before wasting their time.  I must admit I'm gobsmacked that the actual heading of the article is incorrect and reinforces the myth that she was an RMS.  It would be OK if it said something like 'also incorrectly known as RMS...'.  Unless we can clarify somewhere on the article that she is NOT an RMS, and never was, I'll be giving up in exasperation and going no further.
Passionate about QE2 for over 30 years.

Online Peter Mugridge

  • Queens Grill Diner
  • *****
  • Posts: 1847
  • Total likes: 14
  • At Mach 2 three days after being on QE2...
Re: The Wikipedia Fact Check Thread!
« Reply #30 on: Jul 09, 2010, 12:39 PM »
Rob, I had a read through the discussion page and they state in one place that they prefer to stick to something which is verifiable even if it is known to be wrong!

And in another place, they do actually state that they agree that QE2 was not an RMS but because it's not verifiable..............  ::)

So I don't think we should give up yet; it looks like it will be a very long and slow process, but it could also be an interesting one...
"It is a capital mistake to allow any mechanical object to realise that you are in a hurry!"

Offline Chris

Re: The Wikipedia Fact Check Thread!
« Reply #31 on: Jul 10, 2010, 02:07 AM »
To post on discussion click on the discussion tab on the top of the article. Once in thattab, click on edit this page.

To indent your comment post semicolon ::

To sign your post use ~~~~

You may like to create a user name first so your IP isn't saved on Wiki.

The ed17

  • Guest
Re: The Wikipedia Fact Check Thread!
« Reply #32 on: Jul 13, 2010, 07:42 AM »
Alright, now that I've finally dragged myself away from RL, I'll post here.

I'm User:The_ed17 on Wikipedia. You can read more about me here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_ed17

Now, seeing as we are trying to use you guys for your knowledge, feel free to use me. What questions do you have regarding Wikipedia, etc.? Ask away  8)

Offline Chris

Re: The Wikipedia Fact Check Thread!
« Reply #33 on: Jul 13, 2010, 10:35 AM »
Welcome aboard.

It's nice to see that you've taken such an interest in the QE2 article and your assistance in getting our thoughts actioned is appreciated. I think that the Wiki rules will cause some barriers to the changes that the forum members have been discussing, but it's nice to see the lines of communication open.

As one of the members here who have written books on QE2 (The QE2 Story, ISBN: 978-0752450940), I suggest that anyone (including Wiki) who wants a correct account of QE2's life from conception to retirement, listen to any advice given by 'flagship' (Michael Gallagher). He has been instrumental in nearly all QE2 books written and is without a doubt one of the foremost authorities on QE2, and very very generous with sharing his knowledge.

That said, the Wiki rules won't allow for his (or any of our) words on the forum to be considered as fact - however, often we have references to backup our comments so in any case I'm sure there is a work around.

One query, to get the ball rolling, why would comments on a forum such as this, be treated differently to references from (say) a news website article where the reporters can (and often do) make errors given that they often are on deadline and may not be otherwise interested in the ship... some of the comments / facts on Wikipedia come directly from articles from news sources which often state incorrect / warped information.

Cheers,

Chris.

The ed17

  • Guest
Re: The Wikipedia Fact Check Thread!
« Reply #34 on: Jul 15, 2010, 07:35 AM »
Hmmm. Try to think of your question from a different angle. The vast majority of forums, and the authors of posts on them, aren't known for their reliability (or just simply aren't reliable). While the relevant policy doesn't explicitly ban forums like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability ), it has become an unwritten rule, especially after some of the nasty sourcing conflicts we have faced over the topics of "biographies of living persons" or climate change.

Regarding newspapers, they are commonly written by professionals in the field. Yes, they do make mistakes, but as a general rule of thumb they are more neutral, reliable, and accurate than personal websites or forums. Does that make sense? I'm trying to be as clear as I can. :)

Offline Twynkle

Re: The Wikipedia Fact Check Thread!
« Reply #35 on: Jul 15, 2010, 08:00 AM »
Hello The ed17.

Hopefully it's OK to join in the discussion.

It's interesting that you write that newspaper articles are 'commonly written by professionals in the field'.

Unfortunately the most commonly read newspapers don't necessarily contain these!
The article published here is a case in point:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1258062/Images-QE2-abandoned-Port-Rashid-Dubai.html
with the responses to be found here:
http://www.theqe2story.com/forum/index.php/topic,1726.msg18976.html#msg18976

This forum is extremely fortunate - from a historical perspective, there are tried, tested and trusted experts posting here!
QE2 deserves no less!!

Rosie.

[with apologies - edited to correct quotation!!]
« Last Edit: Jul 15, 2010, 08:23 AM by Twynkle »
QE2 has been waiting alongside in Dubai for over 2103 days...or 5 years, 9 months, and many days more - she needs to be earning her keep....

The ed17

  • Guest
Re: The Wikipedia Fact Check Thread!
« Reply #36 on: Jul 16, 2010, 07:33 AM »
I think we have a misunderstanding. By "professionals", I mean professional journalists. Yes, they won't always be perfectly accurate, but we know they are journalists, whereas most forum posters are anonymous fans (not in this case, but on most forums).

This forum is extremely fortunate - from a historical perspective, there are tried, tested and trusted experts posting here!

I agree. The problem is that 99.9% of forums aren't like this one. :)

Basically what I'm hoping y'all can so is use your expert knowledge to check the article, double-check your books on the ship to ensure your memory is correct, then offer corrections for any missed/wrong information with a page number/title/author. Despite what you and I might feel about this forum, we have to comply with Wikipedia's referencing policies. :-\

EDIT: also, to everyone else, jump in and comment! I'm fine with anyone coming in and asking questions or offering ideas, etc. If anyone wishes to help out directly at Wikipedia, let me know and I'll help you get started and learning the basics. It's really not that hard, I promise. :)
« Last Edit: Jul 16, 2010, 07:37 AM by The ed17 »

Offline Rob Lightbody

  • Administrator
  • Queens Grill Diner
  • *****
  • Posts: 6190
  • Total likes: 78
  • Helping to Keep The Legend Alive
    • Rob Lightbody dot com
Re: The Wikipedia Fact Check Thread!
« Reply #37 on: Jul 17, 2010, 04:18 PM »
Oh look - this page is incorrect too! - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Mail_Ship
Passionate about QE2 for over 30 years.

Offline Rob Lightbody

  • Administrator
  • Queens Grill Diner
  • *****
  • Posts: 6190
  • Total likes: 78
  • Helping to Keep The Legend Alive
    • Rob Lightbody dot com
Re: The Wikipedia Fact Check Thread!
« Reply #38 on: Jan 06, 2011, 06:49 PM »
I was talking to my brother over Christmas.  He is an expert in his field, which he is about to complete a ph.d on.  He found a significant error in a significant page on Wikipedia.  He had got incredibly frustrated by trying to get a correction or edit put in place, and had eventually given up in disgust, and from that point on assumed that all information on all articles on wikipedia are suspect.  I came to the same conclusion last year, when we tried to even discuss getting edits made to the QE2 page on wikipedia. 

Today, the article is still called 'RMS Queen Elizabeth 2' even though the ship was never officially called that.

The funny thing is, I just noticed that my 'QE2 today' page is referred to in the article (under 'current situation') as a source and authority on those facts.

Does that mean that if I publish a properly authored web page (Rather than forum discussion) about, say, the RMS issue - that they will accept that, and allow the correction to be made and remain in place?  If so, I will do so!

- Rob
Passionate about QE2 for over 30 years.

Online Peter Mugridge

  • Queens Grill Diner
  • *****
  • Posts: 1847
  • Total likes: 14
  • At Mach 2 three days after being on QE2...
Re: The Wikipedia Fact Check Thread!
« Reply #39 on: Jan 07, 2011, 12:31 AM »
By their own standards they should do - and you do, after all, already have the appropriate website in place on which to publish it, namely the parent site of this forum! :)
"It is a capital mistake to allow any mechanical object to realise that you are in a hurry!"

 

Blank Check for QE2 - What If ?

Started by June IngramBoard Discussions about QE2 after Cunard

Replies: 35
Views: 1256
Last post May 12, 2014, 06:07 PM
by Adam Hodson