News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Wikipedia

Started by Molandfreak, January 31, 2022, 02:20:11 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Scott5114

Quote from: Bruce on February 26, 2022, 06:04:33 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 26, 2022, 04:07:03 PM
Nothing is more frustrating as a Wikipedia editor than knowing without a doubt that something is true, but being unable to find a source that says as much, often because the editors of the sources consider it to be obvious or uninteresting enough it doesn't need to be mentioned.

I'm currently stuck on a few research projects for this very reason. A good deal of coverage for a major construction project before it happens and while it's underway, but nothing turns up when it's actually finished.

I ran into that exact problem on Creek Turnpike. News article stating that one of the extensions was scheduled to open on a certain date, then...no coverage confirming it actually opened according to schedule.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef


ran4sh

Quote from: Bruce on February 26, 2022, 02:57:00 PM
Also important: Wikipedia only reflects what is reported in reliable sources. So if a newspaper gets a detail wrong, it's likely to be carried into the article until a proper, corrected source is found. If a statement is uncited, then it was likely added by a passerby and can be corrected by anyone with a proper source.

Uncited statements can also be removed (a lot of them remain from when Wikipedia was more focused on growth and are less appropriate now that Wikipedia is more focused on accuracy), but as an editor I would often get reverted if I tried to do that, which is part of why I don't really edit WP anymore.
Control cities CAN be off the route! Control cities make NO sense if signs end before the city is reached!

Travel Mapping - Most Traveled: I-40, 20, 10, 5, 95 - Longest Clinched: I-20, 85, 24, 16, NJ Tpk mainline
Champions - UGA FB '21 '22 - Atlanta Braves '95 '21 - Atlanta MLS '18

Scott5114

A lot of times the odds of what getting reverted are dictated by how well your edit summary signifies your intent. If you just remove content with no edit summary, people are much more likely to revert, suspecting vandalism, than if you put "rm uncited" or such in the edit summary. It also kind of depends on how well-sourced the rest of the article is; deleting an uncited statement from an article that already has 100 citations is much more likely to be accepted than deleting one from an article that has whole uncited paragraphs (as the latter looks like cherry-picking).
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

ran4sh

Well, in the case of the latter, I often would delete those entire uncited paragraphs (or even entire uncited sections).
Control cities CAN be off the route! Control cities make NO sense if signs end before the city is reached!

Travel Mapping - Most Traveled: I-40, 20, 10, 5, 95 - Longest Clinched: I-20, 85, 24, 16, NJ Tpk mainline
Champions - UGA FB '21 '22 - Atlanta Braves '95 '21 - Atlanta MLS '18

Scott5114

#29
Quote from: ran4sh on February 27, 2022, 12:40:56 AM
Well, in the case of the latter, I often would delete those entire uncited paragraphs (or even entire uncited sections).

Found your problem. Usually wholesale deletions of an uncited sentence or two are okay. If you're throwing away vast swaths of content like that, though, you usually need to have airtight proof that it's actually false, violates some other policy like NPOV, was added by an editor whose credibility resembles that of Vladimir Putin, etc. Merely being uncited usually doesn't justify it, and can even be construed as vandalism.

Generally, editors view large uncited blocks of text as acceptable until proven otherwise, but in need of further attention and polish; generally the preferred method of dealing with them is by cleaning them up and citing them rather than deleting them. A better approach is to slap a tag on the uncited content to draw attention to the fact that it is uncited; even if it remains that way for a long period of time, Wikipedians are fond of saying there is no deadline.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

Chris

I've been editing a Dutch-language road wiki since 2007. It was set up due to frustration over the poor quality of Dutch Wikipedia and endless and pointless debates on talk pages about naming conventions, but no actual article improvements. Many subjects have a larger talk page than the article itself.

The Dutch Wikipedia is a joke, many readers don't even bother with the Dutch Wikipedia but start out on the English Wikipedia. Dutch Wikipedia went for quantity over quality, with a huge chunk of the content being mere stubs that are not maintained because the number of articles is far too big in relation to the number of active editors.

In my experience with editing for 15 years on the Dutch 'Wegenwiki' (Road's Wiki), maintaining accuracy over time is far more challenging than the initial write-up. How do you keep track of all those articles still being up to date on Wikipedia?

One thing I've noticed on the English Wikipedia about U.S. roads are the history sections. They are often mostly about route numbering changes, but contain little information about the physical changes to a road, when it was first built, what changes occurred over time, and in what context, etc. I think that may be more interesting for casual readers than all the route number changes, or too many intricate details in the route descriptions.

1995hoo

Quote from: Scott5114 on February 26, 2022, 09:10:58 PM
A lot of times the odds of what getting reverted are dictated by how well your edit summary signifies your intent. If you just remove content with no edit summary, people are much more likely to revert, suspecting vandalism, than if you put "rm uncited" or such in the edit summary. It also kind of depends on how well-sourced the rest of the article is; deleting an uncited statement from an article that already has 100 citations is much more likely to be accepted than deleting one from an article that has whole uncited paragraphs (as the latter looks like cherry-picking).

A fair number of people will also use certain edit summaries that tend to suggest vandalism, stuff like "Added content" or "Added facts" or similar. Those edits tend to get reverted for similar reasons.
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

WillWeaverRVA

I probably spent more of my time removing things from Wikipedia than actually adding to them.
Will Weaver
WillWeaverRVA Photography | Twitter

"But how will the oxen know where to drown if we renumber the Oregon Trail?" - NE2

Scott5114

#33
Quote from: Chris on March 02, 2022, 07:25:10 AM
One thing I've noticed on the English Wikipedia about U.S. roads are the history sections. They are often mostly about route numbering changes, but contain little information about the physical changes to a road, when it was first built, what changes occurred over time, and in what context, etc. I think that may be more interesting for casual readers than all the route number changes, or too many intricate details in the route descriptions.

Can't speak with confidence for other states, but in Oklahoma at least, that's because there usually isn't easily-accessible information about the date a road was physically built. A road could have been there since statehood as an anonymous unimportant dirt road that the state later took over and improved, or it could have been purpose-built by the state when they needed a highway there. In either case, the only information the state publishes is the date the designation was added and a line being added to the state map where there wasn't one before.

Newspapers often don't comment on the construction of ordinary roads, either. And finding information on minute details like passing lanes being added? Good luck. Most of the information that would be needed, if it was commented on, would be only noted in a small-town local paper that in many cases has gone out of business 50 years ago and isn't digitized and accessible online, if archives exist at all. Conducting that research would mean visiting libraries in dozens of small towns along what could be a hundred-mile stretch, looking for through microfiche for something which may or may not even exist or be useful.

It is much more straightforward and a better use of the time to write a summary of numbering changes, since that at least gives someone who is interested in conducting more fine-grained research a place to start. If you focus too much on smaller, harder to research details, you end up with three very good articles and a hundred stubs. I'd much rather have 103 decent articles that maybe don't focus so much on the finer details.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

ran4sh

Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on March 02, 2022, 09:02:38 AM
I probably spent more of my time removing things from Wikipedia than actually adding to them.

I do too, but that's because I don't create content for free. I don't like having to release what I write under the GFDL etc where anyone can just copy it for free, so almost none of my Wikipedia edits consist of adding content to articles.
Control cities CAN be off the route! Control cities make NO sense if signs end before the city is reached!

Travel Mapping - Most Traveled: I-40, 20, 10, 5, 95 - Longest Clinched: I-20, 85, 24, 16, NJ Tpk mainline
Champions - UGA FB '21 '22 - Atlanta Braves '95 '21 - Atlanta MLS '18

Scott5114

Quote from: ran4sh on March 02, 2022, 02:33:05 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on March 02, 2022, 09:02:38 AM
I probably spent more of my time removing things from Wikipedia than actually adding to them.

I do too, but that's because I don't create content for free. I don't like having to release what I write under the GFDL etc where anyone can just copy it for free, so almost none of my Wikipedia edits consist of adding content to articles.

Because what you write is so good it's worth paying for?
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

ran4sh

It may not be worth paying for now, but if it becomes worth paying for in the future it would be better for me to have the rights to it, which is not possible with Wikipedia's terms.

I should clarify that I do add content created by others, such as statistical information or information that can simply go in a table or infobox without having to write my own prose to go with it. So in that sense I do add content to articles, however most of my edits do things like reformatting, reorganizing sections, correct errors, etc
Control cities CAN be off the route! Control cities make NO sense if signs end before the city is reached!

Travel Mapping - Most Traveled: I-40, 20, 10, 5, 95 - Longest Clinched: I-20, 85, 24, 16, NJ Tpk mainline
Champions - UGA FB '21 '22 - Atlanta Braves '95 '21 - Atlanta MLS '18

Scott5114

Hah. Not even the output of professional authors is considered worth for paying for anymore. Practically nobody can make a living solely off of writing, at least not as long-form prose. The only way to make any money writing is in marketing or PR. Even journalism is dying.

Clinging to copyright on written text only assures that your work will vanish the moment you stop being around to keep maintaining whatever medium it's stored on. If I die today, all of the copyrighted text on my website will last only as long as my host can keep charging my debit card, and my working copies and backups only as long as my wife desires to keep my old computer and the paper copies around. Meanwhile GFDL-licensed text will still be around when the cockroaches are all that's left of this planet, because it has been repeatedly backed up through legally-allowed copying.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

ran4sh

#38
Who says I want my work to outlive me? This isn't a political forum so I'm not going to elaborate, but I believe copyright protection should be much less than currently exists, and should definitely not outlive the author (The last surviving author, in case of works with multiple authors). Plus with limited copyright protection, content would enter the public domain much earlier and both free and originally non-free content can be repeatedly backed up through legally-allowed copying.

And I'm referring to all formats of copyrightable work, not just writing. Images, videos, etc included. I would never create an image or video and release it for free.
Control cities CAN be off the route! Control cities make NO sense if signs end before the city is reached!

Travel Mapping - Most Traveled: I-40, 20, 10, 5, 95 - Longest Clinched: I-20, 85, 24, 16, NJ Tpk mainline
Champions - UGA FB '21 '22 - Atlanta Braves '95 '21 - Atlanta MLS '18

Scott5114

I create images and videos and release them for free all the time. If it's not something I'm going to make money off of (and I'm not a good enough photographer to labor under the illusion that I'm going to, and I don't have the patience to market myself as an artist-for-hire unless someone is actively waving money in my face)...what possible reason do I have to care if someone else uses it? Personally I think it's kind of neat that photos I've taken at roadmeets have ended up in things like news articles. If I had kept the copyright on it, nobody else would have ever seen or cared about my photo.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

Bruce

Quote from: Chris on March 02, 2022, 07:25:10 AM
How do you keep track of all those articles still being up to date on Wikipedia?

I check the WSDOT press releases and transportation tags for our major newspapers regularly and update as needed. Sometimes it might be months late, but it will eventually get updated.

Quote
One thing I've noticed on the English Wikipedia about U.S. roads are the history sections. They are often mostly about route numbering changes, but contain little information about the physical changes to a road, when it was first built, what changes occurred over time, and in what context, etc. I think that may be more interesting for casual readers than all the route number changes, or too many intricate details in the route descriptions.

As Scott said, it's harder to find such details without digging deep through small town papers. Luckily I've been able to manage with quite a few (see Interstate 182), but even then, writing about when X section opened in Y for Z dollars gets repetitive after a while and some newspapers might not bother to cover the impacts of construction.

WillWeaverRVA

Quote from: ran4sh on March 02, 2022, 02:33:05 PM
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on March 02, 2022, 09:02:38 AM
I probably spent more of my time removing things from Wikipedia than actually adding to them.

I do too, but that's because I don't create content for free. I don't like having to release what I write under the GFDL etc where anyone can just copy it for free, so almost none of my Wikipedia edits consist of adding content to articles.

I meant to say that I was an admin who probably deleted close to 20,000 things during my career.

Also, Wikipedia hasn't been under the GFDL in quite a while, they switched to Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike in like 2009.
Will Weaver
WillWeaverRVA Photography | Twitter

"But how will the oxen know where to drown if we renumber the Oregon Trail?" - NE2

tolbs17

Quote from: Scott5114 on March 02, 2022, 06:36:01 PM
If I had kept the copyright on it, nobody else would have ever seen or cared about my photo.
I feel like most of the images posted here on this forum are copyrighted and are not edited out. City-Data is very strict with that rule and you can get warned for it.

tolbs17

Lol, NDCOT North Department Carolina of Transportation!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_85_Business_(North_Carolina)

Off topic but it's strange that I see I-85 business shields getting removed and not US-70 yet. but, who knows.


Scott5114

Quote from: tolbs17 on March 07, 2022, 10:51:49 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 02, 2022, 06:36:01 PM
If I had kept the copyright on it, nobody else would have ever seen or cared about my photo.
I feel like most of the images posted here on this forum are copyrighted and are not edited out. City-Data is very strict with that rule and you can get warned for it.

That's not what I'm talking about. I've had photos of mine used in news reports because I open-licensed them. If I had just posted them here with the copyright still on them nobody would have seen them but a few dozen roadgeeks.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

X99

The two largest changes I have caused are the creation of the US Route 16 in South Dakota page (to expand on the historical route across the rest of the state) and the deletion of almost every page related to abandoned, unused, former, or unfinished highways. I gained access to the main list page after it was removed so I could sort each entry into its respective article but then I kinda just forgot about it after that.
why are there only like 5 people on this forum from south dakota



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.