News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered at https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33904.0
Corrected several already and appreciate your patience as we work through the rest.

Main Menu

Is AARoads notable enough for a Wikipedia article?

Started by hotdogPi, December 26, 2022, 08:26:08 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Rothman

Quote from: hbelkins on December 27, 2022, 12:34:53 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 27, 2022, 12:48:06 AM

A wiki is just a type of software. So this post reads as "I get the feeling that Spreadsheet is some sort of secret society" or "I'm one of those who has long been skeptical of Website" or "given a widespread perception of the overall socio-political leanings of Database as an institution" or "I have no knowledge of the internal workings of Word Processor".

Actually, I've heard this argument before, which is why I capitalized Wiki.

Some may not realize it, or want to admit it, but "Wiki" has become a synonym for "Wikipedia," the same as "Q-tip" has for "cotton swab" or "Band-Aid" for "small adhesive bandage."
I'm not so sure.  At least amongst those that have perused both wikis and Wikipedia, the two are not synonyms.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.


J N Winkler

I'm certainly aware of resources (such as MoDOT's EPG) that are wikis but not Wikipedia.

And while I can see the arguments for moving fan material from Wikipedia to wikis specific to each fandom, there are counterarguments as well.  Availability over time tends to be less stable, and the editorial POV tends to retreat into the fandom.  When I am new to a given franchise, I prefer to read about it first on Wikipedia because it answers the questions of "What is this?" "Could it be good?" "Why should I care?" "What has the critical response been like?" by applying criteria of notability and neutrality that, at least in theory, apply to everything equally.  If I decide I'm interested in whatever it is, then I can go to the fan sites and wade through the squee.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

Molandfreak

No road articles about a state highway or above are in any real danger of being deleted from Wikipedia. The mass-tagging and section blanking efforts are extremely small and being done by a handful of users who have since scaled back their efforts to only removing material cited to fan sites.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 05, 2023, 08:24:57 PM
AASHTO attributes 28.5% of highway inventory shrink to bad road fan social media posts.

roadman65

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 27, 2022, 12:11:44 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on December 27, 2022, 12:07:39 PM
Aren’t there enough people on here who can make this happen? I know one in particular on here is and I’m sure there are more than him.

I mean, I could go back to editing Wikipedia articles.  Trouble is that I really don’t want to do things by committee or be restricted on how much content I can add.  For example, the blog I did on CA 1 in Big Sur has 597 images (about half are historic images).  Something even a fraction of that size would never fly on Wikipedia.

All I know is a certain troll on here is capable of starting an Wiki article and there are other AARoads users trolls or not, that have the power to start articles.

Hey if someone was able to post a rumor on Wiki that Chelsea Clinton married into the George Soros family, why won’t Wiki let someone start an AARoads page?
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

Scott5114

#54
Quote from: hbelkins on December 27, 2022, 12:34:53 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 27, 2022, 12:48:06 AM

A wiki is just a type of software. So this post reads as "I get the feeling that Spreadsheet is some sort of secret society" or "I'm one of those who has long been skeptical of Website" or "given a widespread perception of the overall socio-political leanings of Database as an institution" or "I have no knowledge of the internal workings of Word Processor".

Actually, I've heard this argument before, which is why I capitalized Wiki.

Some may not realize it, or want to admit it, but "Wiki" has become a synonym for "Wikipedia," the same as "Q-tip" has for "cotton swab" or "Band-Aid" for "small adhesive bandage."

You're wrong. Sorry.

Only use the two of them as synonyms if you want everyone to think you don't know what you're talking about.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

Molandfreak

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 26, 2022, 08:33:01 PM
Funnily enough, 15 years ago, the prevailing mantra was "Wikipedia Is Not Paper". It was generally believed that the more articles the better, since that got the site readers, and thus the thinking was it would result in more editors. The 1,000,000th article was a cause for much celebration.

Now it seems like things are going in the opposite direction and a lot of the more pop-culture-y stuff has been shuffled off to smaller wikis. The fact that many of these wikis are hosted by the for-profit Fandom, Inc., founded by Jimmy Wales, could be salient to those who are more conspiracy-minded.

Quote from: webny99 on December 26, 2022, 08:25:43 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 26, 2022, 07:06:20 PM
It sounds to me like keeping roads content on Wikipedia should take higher priority than having an entry for the AARoads forum.

I certainly agree with this. I've used Wikipedia here and there to find road-related information (often related to a State Highway) that would often be much harder to find without it.

Well, the good news is that a road wiki of some form or fashion will certainly always exist. It's just a question of whether it will be on Wikipedia or...aanother place.
The thing about most of the mass deletions/mergers (or at least the ones I'm aware of) is that there was a shift in attitude towards content that was written during a fad. Unlike other fandoms that have come and gone from Wikipedia, roads and other transportation networks have demonstrable real-world relevancy that seems to be accepted by most Wikipedia editors.

The thing I don't like about Wikipedia that is never going to change is because of the facts that DOT-published content varies so much from agency to agency, and sometimes changes happen without being published, the content is always going to be lopsided and incomplete.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 05, 2023, 08:24:57 PM
AASHTO attributes 28.5% of highway inventory shrink to bad road fan social media posts.

Scott5114

Quote from: Molandfreak on December 27, 2022, 05:13:56 PM
The thing I don't like about Wikipedia that is never going to change is because of the facts that DOT-published content varies so much from agency to agency, and sometimes changes happen without being published, the content is always going to be lopsided and incomplete.

There's newspapers and old maps, too, which can supplement the DOT sources.

The real challenge in wiki road content is that a good chunk of becoming a good editor is learning the universe of sources that exists for a certain state. Where to get mileage info, where to get historic info, where to get historic maps. Because, as you mention, the published content varies so much from state to state, you have to relearn all of this any time you edit an article in a new state. So most editors focus on their home state, meaning that some states never get any attention because nobody who cares about that state has ever bothered to work on the project.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

rschen7754

Quote from: 1995hoo on December 27, 2022, 11:39:22 AM
I perceive a definite anti-US bias pervading a lot of Wikipedia, too. I recently saw an edit summary that was meant to say "De Americanization" (though it was misspelled).

There are some people there who are experts on all the policies and know all the ins and outs of the various rules, many of which are things most people will never have encountered and don't know about, and who will then want to lecture you if you violate one of them.

Regarding coverage of roads on Wikipedia, to some extent I think a lot of road articles suffer from the same problem that a lot of other articles often have–too much trivial minute detail, which is always an issue on Wikipedia generally.

I'm not so sure about that. Two of the most recent targets were an urban road in South Africa and a state highway in Karnataka, India. It is harder to find sources about roads in developing countries, especially with the latter since the main language is Kannada.

roadman65

I met Alex, the forum owner, and he will not use Wiki for info. He uses SLD and state provided info such as state webpages and even reliable map sources to find accurate mileages for roads.

I have used Texas https://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/sh/sh0006.htm to find out info I need on Lone Star Highways helpful.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

US 89

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 27, 2022, 05:21:08 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on December 27, 2022, 05:13:56 PM
The thing I don't like about Wikipedia that is never going to change is because of the facts that DOT-published content varies so much from agency to agency, and sometimes changes happen without being published, the content is always going to be lopsided and incomplete.

There's newspapers and old maps, too, which can supplement the DOT sources.

The real challenge in wiki road content is that a good chunk of becoming a good editor is learning the universe of sources that exists for a certain state. Where to get mileage info, where to get historic info, where to get historic maps. Because, as you mention, the published content varies so much from state to state, you have to relearn all of this any time you edit an article in a new state. So most editors focus on their home state, meaning that some states never get any attention because nobody who cares about that state has ever bothered to work on the project.

Which is why Wikipedia for roads is so useful. Even if you don't want to cite it directly, it will usually have links to the official route logs or historic maps without having to spend an hour or more trying to figure out how those work in different states. I am probably more familiar with Utah's road reference pages, resolutions, documentation, old maps, and general state highway system than most other road people...but drop me in some other random state and I could be completely clueless. Wiki is a good starting point if I need to learn something in a state I don't know much about.

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: US 89 on December 27, 2022, 06:43:29 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 27, 2022, 05:21:08 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on December 27, 2022, 05:13:56 PM
The thing I don't like about Wikipedia that is never going to change is because of the facts that DOT-published content varies so much from agency to agency, and sometimes changes happen without being published, the content is always going to be lopsided and incomplete.

There's newspapers and old maps, too, which can supplement the DOT sources.

The real challenge in wiki road content is that a good chunk of becoming a good editor is learning the universe of sources that exists for a certain state. Where to get mileage info, where to get historic info, where to get historic maps. Because, as you mention, the published content varies so much from state to state, you have to relearn all of this any time you edit an article in a new state. So most editors focus on their home state, meaning that some states never get any attention because nobody who cares about that state has ever bothered to work on the project.

Which is why Wikipedia for roads is so useful. Even if you don't want to cite it directly, it will usually have links to the official route logs or historic maps without having to spend an hour or more trying to figure out how those work in different states. I am probably more familiar with Utah's road reference pages, resolutions, documentation, old maps, and general state highway system than most other road people...but drop me in some other random state and I could be completely clueless. Wiki is a good starting point if I need to learn something in a state I don't know much about.

What I find odd about Wikipedia related to California specifically is that the editors seem to have completely avoided the California Highways & Public Works publication.  Those have exacting dates on most of the major State Highway development in California.  It's incredibly rare to see an instance of a CHPW reference.

rschen7754

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 27, 2022, 06:48:56 PM
Quote from: US 89 on December 27, 2022, 06:43:29 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 27, 2022, 05:21:08 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on December 27, 2022, 05:13:56 PM
The thing I don't like about Wikipedia that is never going to change is because of the facts that DOT-published content varies so much from agency to agency, and sometimes changes happen without being published, the content is always going to be lopsided and incomplete.

There's newspapers and old maps, too, which can supplement the DOT sources.

The real challenge in wiki road content is that a good chunk of becoming a good editor is learning the universe of sources that exists for a certain state. Where to get mileage info, where to get historic info, where to get historic maps. Because, as you mention, the published content varies so much from state to state, you have to relearn all of this any time you edit an article in a new state. So most editors focus on their home state, meaning that some states never get any attention because nobody who cares about that state has ever bothered to work on the project.

Which is why Wikipedia for roads is so useful. Even if you don't want to cite it directly, it will usually have links to the official route logs or historic maps without having to spend an hour or more trying to figure out how those work in different states. I am probably more familiar with Utah's road reference pages, resolutions, documentation, old maps, and general state highway system than most other road people...but drop me in some other random state and I could be completely clueless. Wiki is a good starting point if I need to learn something in a state I don't know much about.

What I find odd about Wikipedia related to California specifically is that the editors seem to have completely avoided the California Highways & Public Works publication.  Those have exacting dates on most of the major State Highway development in California.  It's incredibly rare to see an instance of a CHPW reference.

I wrote most of the San Diego articles but I did not find out about CHPW until after I had written them. I did go back and try and add it in some instances. I can't speak for the other articles.

I also did upload one volume to Wikisource to start transcription but that project stalled. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/California_Highways_and_Public_Works_Journal

That being said, I suspect that nowadays it might be considered as suspect by the same group causing all the issues since it is a government document and thus a "primary source".

Max Rockatansky

#62
Quote from: rschen7754 on December 27, 2022, 08:20:58 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 27, 2022, 06:48:56 PM
Quote from: US 89 on December 27, 2022, 06:43:29 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 27, 2022, 05:21:08 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on December 27, 2022, 05:13:56 PM
The thing I don't like about Wikipedia that is never going to change is because of the facts that DOT-published content varies so much from agency to agency, and sometimes changes happen without being published, the content is always going to be lopsided and incomplete.

There's newspapers and old maps, too, which can supplement the DOT sources.

The real challenge in wiki road content is that a good chunk of becoming a good editor is learning the universe of sources that exists for a certain state. Where to get mileage info, where to get historic info, where to get historic maps. Because, as you mention, the published content varies so much from state to state, you have to relearn all of this any time you edit an article in a new state. So most editors focus on their home state, meaning that some states never get any attention because nobody who cares about that state has ever bothered to work on the project.

Which is why Wikipedia for roads is so useful. Even if you don't want to cite it directly, it will usually have links to the official route logs or historic maps without having to spend an hour or more trying to figure out how those work in different states. I am probably more familiar with Utah's road reference pages, resolutions, documentation, old maps, and general state highway system than most other road people...but drop me in some other random state and I could be completely clueless. Wiki is a good starting point if I need to learn something in a state I don't know much about.

What I find odd about Wikipedia related to California specifically is that the editors seem to have completely avoided the California Highways & Public Works publication.  Those have exacting dates on most of the major State Highway development in California.  It's incredibly rare to see an instance of a CHPW reference.

I wrote most of the San Diego articles but I did not find out about CHPW until after I had written them. I did go back and try and add it in some instances. I can't speak for the other articles.

I also did upload one volume to Wikisource to start transcription but that project stalled. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/California_Highways_and_Public_Works_Journal

That being said, I suspect that nowadays it might be considered as suspect by the same group causing all the issues since it is a government document and thus a "primary source".

You're the only person I've encountered so far for California that has done substantial work for any roads in California (and thank you for the reliable references).  The scannable versions of the CHPWs didn't really emerge until a couple years back, I've found myself having to update older Gribblenation articles when time permits.  I do try to make the hyperlinks and public document images easy for anyone reading to grab/save/use elsewhere.  I was gifted an almost complete physical set of CHPWs right around when they were beginning to appear online. 

I also don't really recall seeing any AASHTO database references now that I think about. 

Scott5114

The AASHTO database is tricky to cite because there's no real way to express the way that it works in Wikipedia citation format. Here, you see a lot of citations of the format "Go to the AASHTO database, search for X, and it's in the document titled Y" because it's hard to get a permanent URL from the database. If you try to cite something that way on Wikipedia, someone will murder you and set you on fire while you celebrate your birthday.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

Max Rockatansky

Therein lies something I think we have the advantage.  I can't practically hyperlink anything from AASHTO, but I can insert image scans.

bulldog1979

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 27, 2022, 08:34:17 PM
The AASHTO database is tricky to cite because there's no real way to express the way that it works in Wikipedia citation format. Here, you see a lot of citations of the format "Go to the AASHTO database, search for X, and it's in the document titled Y" because it's hard to get a permanent URL from the database. If you try to cite something that way on Wikipedia, someone will murder you and set you on fire while you celebrate your birthday.

The good thing about the AASHTO Special Committee reports is that we've put them on Wikimedia Commons, fully indexed them on Wikipedia and started transcribing them on Wikisource.

kphoger

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 27, 2022, 08:34:17 PM
The AASHTO database is tricky to cite because there's no real way to express the way that it works in Wikipedia citation format. Here, you see a lot of citations of the format "Go to the AASHTO database, search for X, and it's in the document titled Y" because it's hard to get a permanent URL from the database. If you try to cite something that way on Wikipedia, someone will murder you and set you on fire while you celebrate your birthday.

It's biblical to murder someone during a birthday party–but only if it's someone else's birthday party.  (This is an interesting bit of trivia I discovered a couple of years ago.  The only two birthday celebrations mentioned in the Bible were the occasion of the death of innocent people.)
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

formulanone

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 27, 2022, 08:34:17 PM
The AASHTO database is tricky to cite because there's no real way to express the way that it works in Wikipedia citation format. Here, you see a lot of citations of the format "Go to the AASHTO database, search for X, and it's in the document titled Y" because it's hard to get a permanent URL from the database. If you try to cite something that way on Wikipedia, someone will murder you and set you on fire while you celebrate your birthday.

And yet it's understandably okay to use a citation for a page in a published book which may no longer exist in any library.

Never underestimate the power of laziness.

Rothman

Quote from: formulanone on December 28, 2022, 10:49:51 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 27, 2022, 08:34:17 PM
The AASHTO database is tricky to cite because there's no real way to express the way that it works in Wikipedia citation format. Here, you see a lot of citations of the format "Go to the AASHTO database, search for X, and it's in the document titled Y" because it's hard to get a permanent URL from the database. If you try to cite something that way on Wikipedia, someone will murder you and set you on fire while you celebrate your birthday.

And yet it's understandably okay to use a citation for a page in a published book which may no longer exist in any library.

Never underestimate the power of laziness.
Library of Congress
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

skluth

There is nothing stopping anyone from writing a new article about anything. Getting an account is as simple as applying for one. You just have to follow the rules. There's even a guide on the left side of every page to help should you desire to write a page on, for example, Alanland. (There are actual wiki articles on an Alanland, but not in Wikipedia. AARoads Alanland is not the only Alanland in existence.) Documentation is a pain in the ass, but it's the only way to keep articles intellectually honest. It's hard to write without opinions, and many can't or refuse to do it.

Wikipedia isn't hard as long as you have the facts. Worried about a URL not staying around? The internet also has this cool repository called the Wayback Machine where you can archive anything. The group I was working with on writing articles essentially required us to archive everything for documentation because web pages often disappear. But there is nothing stopping anyone from creating an AA Roads page. Someone else may mark it for deletion. But if the page is well-documented and looks to be significant enough (which IMO is a judgment call but I'm not privy to inner Wikipedia circles), you'll have started a new page.

kphoger

Quote from: skluth on December 28, 2022, 11:29:00 AM
AARoads Alanland is not the only Alanland in existence.

Of course not.  The legend started with this guy.
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

J N Winkler

I have edited Wikipedia in the past and have cited facts to construction plans sets without getting caught, though this is discouraged (if not banned outright) as they are primary sources.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

1995hoo

Wait, what's wrong with "primary sources"? Normally in the context of research, a "primary source" (the original text) is better than a "secondary source" (such as an encyclopedia or treatise or similar that may summarize what the primary source said).
"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.

kphoger

Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

J N Winkler

Quote from: 1995hoo on December 28, 2022, 12:21:31 PMWait, what's wrong with "primary sources"? Normally in the context of research, a "primary source" (the original text) is better than a "secondary source" (such as an encyclopedia or treatise or similar that may summarize what the primary source said).

Agreed.  The problem is that article facts cited to primary sources tend to be original research, which is explicitly forbidden per WP:NOR.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini



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.