Introducing the AARoads Wiki

[wriddle082]

Thank you to everyone involved in making this happen!  Losing any Wikipedia road content would certainly be devastating to folks like us to whom the pages are certainly more "notable"  than, say, most of the Kardashian family.

Most of my general web surfing these days is on my phone's browser.  Wikipedia articles always load up with a "mobile"  version of the site.  The first article I tried pulling up on AARoads Wiki loaded up the normal version of the site that needed to be zoomed in.  Will mobile sites eventually be created to mirror the normal sites?

Again, many thanks to everyone who is making this possible!

[Scott5114]

I have noticed the slowness. Good to see there is around 15k articles already, though.

Are most of the articles just copy/pasted from Wikipedia? For example, I like the California ones on Wikipedia because they'll have tables showing mileposts, major junctions, etc. Is all that being retained?

There is a bit more to it than merely copy-pasting (Wikipedia page histories have to have the names of past editors extracted and retained to comply with the license), but yes, the text that currently appears is the same as was exported from Wikipedia a couple of months ago (the exact revision exported is normally linked to in the page history). We plan to retain the format of the articles (including the junction lists) and expand upon it. We are now no longer subject to the Wikipedia style guide's prohibition of image galleries, for instance.

And the weird thing is, Wikipedia in general acts like they don't impose rules top-down, they act like anyone can participate in determining what the rules are

Well, that's because they don't, and anyone can participate in rule-making. However, the problem is 1) only those who are bureaucratically minded tend to participate in rule-making, and often (as is true of our opponents in this case) the people interested in setting policy do not actually contribute any articles to the website, (indeed, just participating in policy-making discussions can be a full-time job, leaving little time to actually write content) and 2) once a rule has been decided, it is difficult to get it changed since, by default, the discussion is treated as a solved problem that need not be revisited. (This is often because the discussion was acrimonious the first time around and there is an aversion to reopening old wounds.)

Honestly I would love for that argument to win out on Wikipedia. No more quickly building articles about specific events based on news articles about the event. (Especially since so many of them have inaccuracies because of the rush to release a news article)

This is indeed why the "no primary sources" rule has been promulgated, but if strictly enforced, it has the side effect of making certain subjects nigh uncoverable on Wikipedia, because of the dearth of secondary and tertiary sources available. Also, relying on secondary sources is no guarantee of reliability either. While a secondary source author has the advantage of hindsight and perspective of how future events transpired from the subject event, they also introduce the risk of telephone-game errors, as well as projection of the author's own biases onto their analysis of the primary sources.

[Scott5114]

Most of my general web surfing these days is on my phone's browser.  Wikipedia articles always load up with a "mobile"  version of the site.  The first article I tried pulling up on AARoads Wiki loaded up the normal version of the site that needed to be zoomed in.  Will mobile sites eventually be created to mirror the normal sites?

I've put that on our to-do list. 

[wriddle082]

Most of my general web surfing these days is on my phone's browser.  Wikipedia articles always load up with a "mobile"  version of the site.  The first article I tried pulling up on AARoads Wiki loaded up the normal version of the site that needed to be zoomed in.  Will mobile sites eventually be created to mirror the normal sites?

I've put that on our to-do list. 

Awesome, thanks again! 👍

[Quillz]

This should ultimately probably be a boon. Bulbapedia, for example, is an excellent example of how game-specific wikis can work. Not only are there articles on every Pokemon, but you get highly technical pages detailing game formula, various RNG seeds, and so on. And that's not even getting into all the pages it has on the anime, the trading card game, etc.

Ideally, I think what could be really nice is a whole subset dedicated to history. Pages about auto trails, wagon roads, original highway networks in states before any major changes happened, so on.

[chrismarion100]

Is anyone else having issues creating an account because it wants you to do a ghost CAPTCHA?

[Fredddie]

2) once a rule has been decided, it is difficult to get it changed since, by default, the discussion is treated as a solved problem that need not be revisited. (This is often because the discussion was acrimonious the first time around and there is an aversion to reopening old wounds.)

Unless we created the rule then it's fair game to ignore.

[Fredddie]

Is anyone else having issues creating an account because it wants you to do a ghost CAPTCHA?

Send me a PM with what username you'd like and an email address and I can create an account for you.

[rschen7754]

Is anyone else having issues creating an account because it wants you to do a ghost CAPTCHA?

What do you mean by that? I can see the question, though it is a bit hard to see since there is no line break before it.

[Rothman]

Thanks for those who got this started.

Just getting to this thread now, but Wikipedia's rejection of DOT sources due to lack of "independence" is just about the most ridiculous thing that I've heard in a month.

[1995hoo]

• Newspaper articles cannot be used because they are primary sources. (This one is just outside the Overton window at the moment, but that seems to be shifting. If this ends up becoming a mainstream view, you're going to see a lot of content purged, not just roads. So it's possible that may be a bridge too far, but it is the logical outcome of the policy as currently written and interpreted.)

Honestly I would love for that argument to win out on Wikipedia. No more quickly building articles about specific events based on news articles about the event. (Especially since so many of them have inaccuracies because of the rush to release a news article)

The other problem with newspaper articles is that the average person editing Wikipedia isn't diligent enough to look at what an article itself claims for its source. Newspaper articles that say, for example, "sources say xyz" are of questionable value because nobody knows who the sources are and where they claim to be getting their information (except the reporter, who isn't telling, and the sources who wish to remain anonymous). People see a news report about an event that "sources say" is expected to occur in the future and they treat it as established fact that the event will occur. It would be more accurate to say "media reports indicated xyz" or similar, but that distinction is probably too subtle for the average person who thinks, "Ooo, look, I can beat everyone else to putting this on Wikipedia."

[Max Rockatansky]

I dunno, a newspaper article covering the dedication ceremony of a highway seems like an extremely reliable primary source to me.  Trying to wedge universal rules for source types is bound to exclude some reliable information at some point

[epzik8]

Are those redlinks for cities and states eventually going to/allowed to become articles?

[1995hoo]

I dunno, a newspaper article covering the dedication ceremony of a highway seems like an extremely reliable primary source to me.  Trying to wedge universal rules for source types is bound to exclude some reliable information at some point

I agree with that first sentence. I also find it mildly amusing that in most research contexts, use of a primary source is considered a good thing, but not in the Wikipedia world.

[Scott5114]

Are those redlinks for cities and states eventually going to/allowed to become articles?

No, those are an artifact of being exported from Wikipedia; they were blue links on Wikipedia. We are gradually fixing those to all point back to the relevant Wikipedia articles, but there are so many articles that need to be fixed it will take some time. (This is an easy task that anyone who would like to pitch in can do; we even have a small bit of software–a "gadget" in MediaWiki parlance–that lists every link in the article and lets you choose whether to leave it pointing to AARoads Wiki or change it to a Wikipedia link.)

We've talked about maybe creating some sort of city-level articles that discuss the road system in a given city, but nothing has been decided. Even so, we wouldn't need these for small towns and unincorporated places with only one or two state highways, so those links would need to be changed anyway.

• Newspaper articles cannot be used because they are primary sources. (This one is just outside the Overton window at the moment, but that seems to be shifting. If this ends up becoming a mainstream view, you're going to see a lot of content purged, not just roads. So it's possible that may be a bridge too far, but it is the logical outcome of the policy as currently written and interpreted.)

Honestly I would love for that argument to win out on Wikipedia. No more quickly building articles about specific events based on news articles about the event. (Especially since so many of them have inaccuracies because of the rush to release a news article)

The other problem with newspaper articles is that the average person editing Wikipedia isn't diligent enough to look at what an article itself claims for its source. Newspaper articles that say, for example, "sources say xyz" are of questionable value because nobody knows who the sources are and where they claim to be getting their information (except the reporter, who isn't telling, and the sources who wish to remain anonymous). People see a news report about an event that "sources say" is expected to occur in the future and they treat it as established fact that the event will occur. It would be more accurate to say "media reports indicated xyz" or similar, but that distinction is probably too subtle for the average person who thinks, "Ooo, look, I can beat everyone else to putting this on Wikipedia."

There's also the circular citations where a reporter on a deadline looks something up in Wikipedia to help flesh out a story, and then that story is used to cite the information in Wikipedia the reporter looked up in the first place.

I've also caught the Oklahoman straight up copy and pasting from Wikipedia. Which led to the silliness of the text on Wikipedia getting flagged as a copyright violation until I pointed out that the text was added to the article years before it appeared in print...

I dunno, a newspaper article covering the dedication ceremony of a highway seems like an extremely reliable primary source to me.  Trying to wedge universal rules for source types is bound to exclude some reliable information at some point

I agree with that first sentence. I also find it mildly amusing that in most research contexts, use of a primary source is considered a good thing, but not in the Wikipedia world.

Indeed, I shared this whole saga with a friend of mine who has a master's in library science, and she was absolutely appalled that primary sources would ever be disallowed, to the point that she was rethinking her trust in Wikipedia altogether.

[kphoger]

It's basically Scott and I trying to figure out what can be done.

This should ultimately probably be a boon.

Forgive me for my ignorance of how this stuff works, and please be so kind as to enlighten me.

1.  What is the goal of the Wiki?  Is it to eventually become basically a better Wikipedia?  One in which anyone and everyone is free to contribute and discuss and edit?  Or will there be a group of gatekeepers?

2.  I used to participate in an internet forum that eventually died a pitiful death because basically one guy was running it, he couldn't afford to run it anymore, and nobody else in the 'community' was able, ready, or willing to do anything about it.  Is there any danger of this Wiki eventually dying because whoever is running the show just throws in the towel (similar to what could imaginably happen to this forum someday)?

[Max Rockatansky]

Basically the "majority"  of group think at Wikipedia has decided highways are not important enough to feature on the site.  The AAroads Wiki is an attempt to salvage the existing content road of Wikipedia before the looming purge takes effect.  Wikipedia is just in danger of losing itself to unhealthy group think, not so much financially.

[kphoger]

Wikipedia is just in danger of losing itself to unhealthy group think, not so much financially.

I was asking about the long-term stability of the AARoads Wiki, not Wikipedia.

[Max Rockatansky]

Hosted by Alex much like the forum and AAroads web page is.  That coupled with who else is working on the Wiki gives it a pretty reliable footing.

[J N Winkler]

What is the goal of the Wiki?  Is it to eventually become basically a better Wikipedia?  One in which anyone and everyone is free to contribute and discuss and edit?  Or will there be a group of gatekeepers?

The consensus is preservation of North American road-related content that is at risk of deletion as attacks on article notability and sourcing ramp up to what veteran observers believe will be a likely successful attempt to overturn WP:GEOROAD.  Beyond that, there is a spread of opinion as to how much effort to invest in defending the legacy content on the English Wikipedia.  Some favor rearguard action, while others want to commit immediately to the Pokémon model of focusing efforts on the AARoads Wiki so that it will climb in search engine rankings, especially once road articles start disappearing from Wikipedia proper.

It has already been agreed that anonymous (IP-only) editing will not be allowed on the AARoads Wiki, and sourcing guidelines will be modified to better reflect the probative value of the underlying material so that article development is not held hostage to an artificial distinction between primary and secondary sources.

I used to participate in an internet forum that eventually died a pitiful death because basically one guy was running it, he couldn't afford to run it anymore, and nobody else in the 'community' was able, ready, or willing to do anything about it.  Is there any danger of this Wiki eventually dying because whoever is running the show just throws in the towel (similar to what could imaginably happen to this forum someday)?

No guarantees can be given.  However, roads-related forums (including not just us, but also SABRE) tend to be much better off than ones dedicated to writing, for example, because the subject matter attracts multiple numerate and tech-literate enthusiasts who can help keep things ticking over in the engine room and implement robust fallbacks in the event of serious technical problems.  (The writing forum I'm a member of has basically just one person handling the technical work and essentially had to start from scratch six years ago when CompuServe closed, forcing the members to set up their own Web forum.  People had been keeping private archives of the legacy content, but none of them was complete or in a form that allowed migration.)

[Max Rockatansky]

An interesting observation I've had on Gribblenation over the last couple years is that some of our commonly most viewed Top 20 articles often comprises roads that were deleted from Wikipedia.  Granted most of those articles aren't often "numbered highways" but it does illustrate that this isn't per se a recent trend.

[Quillz]

1.  What is the goal of the Wiki?  Is it to eventually become basically a better Wikipedia?  One in which anyone and everyone is free to contribute and discuss and edit?  Or will there be a group of gatekeepers?

I can't answer the latter questions, but a "better Wikipedia" for roads, yes, that's the goal. Bulbapedia was cited by myself and some others, and is a great model. There are articles about every single Pokemon, as well as every single trading card, every single anime episode. And then highly technical articles dealing with the really complex formulas for calculating damage, predicting RNG, possible stat ranges, and so on. Something like 50,000 articles on just one video game franchise. It seems that is the end goal here. Every numbered highway has an article, gives at least some cursory information. Perhaps articles about historical alignments, historical highways, etc.

[JREwing78]

This is a worthy project and a natural extension of what AARoads is all about. I will definitely be checking it out, and would love to contribute as time and energy permit.

SM-G991U

[Max Rockatansky]

1.  What is the goal of the Wiki?  Is it to eventually become basically a better Wikipedia?  One in which anyone and everyone is free to contribute and discuss and edit?  Or will there be a group of gatekeepers?

I can't answer the latter questions, but a "better Wikipedia" for roads, yes, that's the goal. Bulbapedia was cited by myself and some others, and is a great model. There are articles about every single Pokemon, as well as every single trading card, every single anime episode. And then highly technical articles dealing with the really complex formulas for calculating damage, predicting RNG, possible stat ranges, and so on. Something like 50,000 articles on just one video game franchise. It seems that is the end goal here. Every numbered highway has an article, gives at least some cursory information. Perhaps articles about historical alignments, historical highways, etc.

Is it limited to numbered highways?  I didn't see any indication that the AAroads Wiki is beholden to such a standard.  If an unnumbered highway is notable, then why not add an article?

[Quillz]

1.  What is the goal of the Wiki?  Is it to eventually become basically a better Wikipedia?  One in which anyone and everyone is free to contribute and discuss and edit?  Or will there be a group of gatekeepers?

I can't answer the latter questions, but a "better Wikipedia" for roads, yes, that's the goal. Bulbapedia was cited by myself and some others, and is a great model. There are articles about every single Pokemon, as well as every single trading card, every single anime episode. And then highly technical articles dealing with the really complex formulas for calculating damage, predicting RNG, possible stat ranges, and so on. Something like 50,000 articles on just one video game franchise. It seems that is the end goal here. Every numbered highway has an article, gives at least some cursory information. Perhaps articles about historical alignments, historical highways, etc.

Is it limited to numbered highways?  I didn't see any indication that the AAroads Wiki is beholden to such a standard.  If an unnumbered highway is notable, then why not add an article?

No idea, I was just trying to give a vague explanation of why this project will be great once fully realized. I have no say or control in what is or isn't being added.