Introducing the AARoads Wiki

[Max Rockatansky]

So far I haven't had much luck with Nevada and New Mexico (two states I also write about frequently).  To your point all the publications I listed above have been scanned online and are now easy to access.

[J N Winkler]

So far I haven't had much luck with Nevada and New Mexico (two states I also write about frequently).  To your point all the publications I listed above have been scanned online and are now easy to access.

It looks like some material from New Mexico has now been scanned, including the report of the State Engineer covering the 1912-1914 biennium.  I've gone through some of these in print and they include maps of the state highways (including NM 1, NM 2, and NM 3 at their much longer original lengths), as well as photos of early construction.  One of the early reports even has a photo of what was eventually designated as NM 1 (and then, on mostly new alignments in the same corridor, US 85 and I-25) back in the days when it was a wagon road.

Edit:  New Mexico also had its own state-published highways magazine similar to CHPW, but I don't know if back issues have been scanned.

[rschen7754]

Hi Rschen7754 - It's good to see you on the AARoads wiki. I remember you from many years ago when I was active on Wikipedia. I haven't edited there in any major capacity in years because of disagreements in its direction, but saw your last Center Line newsletter about the changes. I was wondering what the deal was with the AARoads wiki and now understand the why.

Missed seeing this, but good to see you are still around as well!

[D-Dey65]

One thing I have to know before I join; Is this connected to what is today known as the Fandom website? Because I go under a different screen name there.

[hotdogPi]

One thing I have to know before I join; Is this connected to what is today known as the Fandom website? Because I go under a different screen name there.

No. It's not part of Fandom.

[Scott5114]

One thing I have to know before I join; Is this connected to what is today known as the Fandom website? Because I go under a different screen name there.

No. It's not part of Fandom.

To expand on this, AARoads Wiki runs entirely on a server paid for by Alex, same as the forum does. The only connections to any other site are that it uses Wikimedia Commons to host photos, the same as Wikipedia does, and uses OpenStreetMap for maps.

[rschen7754]

We are taking signups for those interested in editing other countries on the AARoads Wiki: https://wiki.aaroads.com/wiki/AARoads:International

Rather than doing a blind mass dump of everything on Wikipedia, we are looking to slowly import and fix as we go.

[rschen7754]

We made Gizmodo: https://gizmodo.com/competing-wikipedia-editors-only-about-roads-aaroads-1851298769

[bulldog1979]

We made Gizmodo: https://gizmodo.com/competing-wikipedia-editors-only-about-roads-aaroads-1851298769

And the Gizmodo article made Slashdot: https://news.slashdot.org/story/24/03/01/2246227/rogue-editors-started-a-competing-wikipedia-thats-only-about-roads

[Quillz]

What was the reasoning Wikipedia doesn't like primary sources? Aren't those generally the best sources of information?

[Rothman]

What was the reasoning Wikipedia doesn't like primary sources? Aren't those generally the best sources of information?

I think they think of them as biased -- just someone talking about themselves.  And then they think if someone on the outside talks about the topic, that it makes the topic significant.

In terms of any topic that deals with policy implementation, including transportation capital projects that are progressed in accordance with such, along with the fact that I've spent most of my academic and professional careers performing policy research, I find Wikipedia's stubborn and myopic view on this matter to be totally ridiculous

[Max Rockatansky]

What was the reasoning Wikipedia doesn't like primary sources? Aren't those generally the best sources of information?

The way I'm to understand it is over a fear that first hand sources (such as questionable government regimes) might not be reliable or misleading.  To me that just seems like needless bureaucracy for highways.  But there isn't a reason (several more accurately) why I haven't written on Wikipedia since 2005. 

[seicer]

It's frustrating and one of the reasons why I stopped adding content years ago. But the moment you find some XYZ site that produces the same content and looks "reliable" - it's fair game.

""I realized that there was a large portion of very vocal people on Wikipedia who just really didn't care about quality," Zeleny said."

I found the problem and it's not the road article editors. The name starts with Z.

[formulanone]

What was the reasoning Wikipedia doesn't like primary sources? Aren't those generally the best sources of information?

The way I'm to understand it is over a fear that first hand sources (such as questionable government regimes) might not be reliable or misleading.  To me that just seems like needless bureaucracy for highways.  But there isn't a reason (several more accurately) why I haven't written on Wikipedia since 2005. 

I understand being potentially skeptical of government sources, but one should have the same skepticism towards media and press. If some State/National Agency said something that could be disproven in the field, we'd be right on it. And that's the Catch 22 of Wikipedia; we're not allowed to use that source but if we found the discrepancies, we'd be guilty of performing original research.

[Rothman]

I just think of the old Church Hearings as an example.  According to Wikipedia as I've read their asinine policy, I am to trust newspaper articles about the hearings more than the transcript itself (or, at least, take the newspaper articles as verification of the content of the transcript).  That's totally absurd.

[ClassicHasClass]

We made Gizmodo: https://gizmodo.com/competing-wikipedia-editors-only-about-roads-aaroads-1851298769

And the Gizmodo article made Slashdot: https://news.slashdot.org/story/24/03/01/2246227/rogue-editors-started-a-competing-wikipedia-thats-only-about-roads

And Hacker News: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39572441

[Max Rockatansky]

I don't think I'm clear on something, does the prohibition on first party sources carry over to the AAroads Wiki?

[LilianaUwU]

I don't think I'm clear on something, does the prohibition on first party sources carry over to the AAroads Wiki?

Absolutely not. It is one of the main reasons why we forked.

[Max Rockatansky]

I don't think I'm clear on something, does the prohibition on first party sources carry over to the AAroads Wiki?

Absolutely not. It is one of the main reasons why we forked.

I see, thanks for clarifying.

[rschen7754]

I don't think I'm clear on something, does the prohibition on first party sources carry over to the AAroads Wiki?

Stuff like laws, DOT stuff, definitely not.

There is a hierarchy of sourcing: https://wiki.aaroads.com/wiki/AARoads:Content_policy#Sourcing

[Rothman]

Maybe the Wikipedia policy was meant to scare people into forking in some.sort of hare-brained scheme to save money.

[bulldog1979]

Maybe the Wikipedia policy was meant to scare people into forking in some.sort of hare-brained scheme to save money.

Not really. Every revision of every deleted article still exists in the database along with every revision of ever extant article. Deleting highway articles does not save server resources. Deleted articles may not have to be actively indexed for search proposes, but they still exist. So far though, the powers that be haven't really gone on a deletion spree with the articles.