The Wikipedia Fact Check Thread!

[Peter Mugridge]

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...

[Chris]

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]

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  

[Chris]

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]

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.

[Twynkle]

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:
https://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!!]

[The ed17]

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.

[Rob Lightbody]

Oh look - this page is incorrect too! - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Mail_Ship

[Rob Lightbody]

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

[Peter Mugridge]

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!

[Stowaway2k]

Everything's wrong on Wikipedia.

Gore Vidal
American author and historian

[Lynda Bradford]

BBC News has an article about the Wikipedia web site being too complicated for most people to edit information.  

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12171977

[Pat Curry]

I followed up on editing the QE2 piece on Wikipedia. 

I wanted to verify the difficulties this form is having. So at c1900 on 15 Jan, I did a minor edit and a major one to see if both edits, or one or none would be taken out and how long it would take. 

For the minor edit  in the para on  Crew accommodation  I changed the following:

" A fourth bar, dedicated for the officers is located at the forward end of Boat Deck. Named The Officers Wardroom this area enjoys forward facing views and is often opened to passengers for cocktail parties hosted by the senior officers."

to:
" ... [stet]  and was often opened to passengers [stet] ..."

Then into External Links' I added 'The QE2 Story Forum'.  (under Chris's Cunard Page.)

I checked it out until about 9pm and the link worked OK. I then closed down for the night.

This morning I checked it to find that the page had been, I quote  "last modified on 15 January 2011 at 22.33".

The QE2 Story Forum. link had gone.  But the 'is / was' change remains!

Interesting!

But who took out the forum link and why? 

And why is Chris page OK but not the forum?

[ship pro]

The original statement was more factual!

[ship pro]

Except it should have mentioned "by invitation" otherwise it gives the impression any passenger could roll up!