The Wikipedia Fact Check Thread!

[richc1977]

I did try and add my website and virtual tour on that page in the links section but it disappeared within a minute.

"Someone" has a preset idea on how that page should be and you're all right, it is a mess.  But "they" probably won't let you change it.

Why is there such a pre-occpation with her name that it warrants such a big section?  it's longer than the technical section which is much more significant.

And the order of things is just all over the place. 

[Peter Mugridge]

Mesaage from the Wiki editor I mentioned ( I sent him the link to this thread )


Dear Peter,
Please post the following on my behalf.

It's great that members of this forum wish to improve the QE2 article. The article is currently unprotected so it is not necessary to create an account to edit the article, although doing so is free and carries certain advantages. I note that fellow Wikipedian MBK004 has been mentioned as "owning" the article. No editor "owns" an article, but ensuring that edits made to an article meet various policies on Wikipedia is not "ownership", nor is reverting edits made in good faith, but which fall foul of various policies, or the reversion of vandalism. Like myself, (Mjroots), MBK004 is an Administrator on Wikipedia.

Anyone wishing to edit Wikipedia would do well to read the various pages linked from Wikipedia's Welcome Notice, which explain a lot about what Wikipedia is and what it is not. Any proposed major changes to an article should be discussed on that articles talk page first to see what the consensus is. Discussion can also take place at the Wikiproject talk page. Any questions please ask on my Wikipedia talk page and I'll try my best to answer them.

Welcome Notice - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Welcome
What Wikipedia is not - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT
Wikiproject Ships - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SHIPS
My user page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mjroots
My talk page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mjroots

Michael Roots.

[Rob Lightbody]

Ok. Thanks for that information. Here's my suggestion. We take one problem or mistake at a time and open a topic here to discuss it. we nominate ONE person to then go to the page's discussion to get the agreement to change it. I suggest we start with the RMS issue. QE2 was never RMS and i'd like to correct this then move onto the next problem. Michael Gallagher has posted here with proof and explanation.

https://www.theqe2story.com/forum/index.php/topic,1392.msg15309.html#msg15309

[Peter Mugridge]

I would suggest that when submitting things for discussion that a link be provided to the relevant thread on here, especially where documentary evidence has been posted.  Should make things a lot easier to prove.

[Chris]

Saw this today on the QE2 Article Discussion Page:

Message for members of TheQE2story forum

Thanks for your interest in improving the article. Hopefully Peter will post a message on my behalf to you there. The most important thing for you to remember is that we do not accept original research on Wikipedia. All info added should be verifiable and sources quoted. Use {{cite web}} for website (but NOT forums, which are not reliable sources, but may provide links to such sources), {{cite book}} for books, {{cite newspaper}} for newspapers and {{cite journal}} for magazines. Any questions please feel free to ask on this section of the talk page. Mjroots (talk) 08:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

    Well, I see you guys haven't posted yet, but if you do, we are still watching this page. :-) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

[Peter Mugridge]

I wonder why Wiki don't accept original research?  You would have thought that stuff from genuine contemporary documents would be exactly what they'd need wouldn't you?  I'll have to ask him about that...


Meanwhile, Rob, have you noticed the constant influx of guests since that went up on the Wiki page?

[Twynkle]

I wonder why Wiki don't accept original research?  You would have thought that stuff from genuine contemporary documents would be exactly what they'd need wouldn't you?  I'll have to ask him about that...

Peter -
Theoretically speaking, doesn't any any proper research based factual information need peer reviewing prior to publication?
When this is the case, then wouldn't you agree that if Wiki to allows random citations from Magazines and Newspapers it will automatically devalue the validity of information gathered from these sources?
Newspaper reports can be misleading, as can articles in magazines etc etc.
Isn't it somewhat surprising that these can be used as 'verifiable proof of facts' on the Wiki site?

Therefore wouldn't it seem more appropriate for Rob's researched site 'The QE2 Story', and Sam Warwick's site 'QE2' together with the researched and published factual literature and importantly, the archives to be regarded as sole authentic sources of information regarding QE2?
Wouldn't 'the rest' be deemed to be 'experiential', therefore subjective?  Although it will be historical, it may or may not be factual.
Rosie

[PS. As Wikpedia describes itself as an encyclopedia, here are some definitions!!
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&defl=en&q=define:encyclopedia&sa=X&ei=Z6w0TKSAMJm60gTw3PSbAw&ved=0CB4QkAE  ]
 

[Peter Mugridge]

By "genuine contemporary documents" I was thinking about the stuff in Flagship's (ware)house.

[Rob Lightbody]

I'm away just now with limited internet access. Brief reply. The 'forum' was never to be the source/proof for any suggested changes. All changes will be backed up with evidence. However it is important to note that Some of the members here WROTE the books that are quoted already on the QE2 article.

[Rob Lightbody]

I've read the discussion page on the article - and it is interesting.  It will be good to co-operate on making some changes.

The authors of most of the books written about QE2 over the past 15 years or more have used, referrred to, and acknowledged Michael Gallagher of Cunard who is 'flagship' on this forum - Michael has worked at Cunard for decades and I and many others consider him to be possibly the greatest expert on QE2 that there is.  His knowledge, combined with his enormous archive of QE2 material, in my view actually make him a 'RS' but from reading the guidance this does not look acceptable, which is a shame.  Anything Michael tells me I have always taken as gospel, and continue to do so.  What he tells us here is not opinion, or his views, its fact.

So - for instance - when he tells me that QE2 was never an RMS (and explains why) - I know it is a fact.  Its just a case of finding in which book he has helped the author write it down!

- Rob.

[Chris]

The Wikipedia mods have posted further messages in "discussion" and very kindly asked for our help.

The tricky bit really is the rules so agree it's best to discuss edits with the Wiki mods in the discussion page before investing lots of time editing the pages, just to save everyone time.

Chris. 

[Peter Mugridge]

Where is the "discussion" page anyway?  I can only find the public article linked in the OP on this thread?

[Rob Lightbody]

Where is the "discussion" page anyway?  I can only find the public article linked in the OP on this thread?

There are 'tabs' at the top of the article page - you can change them to read the discussion.

[Peter Mugridge]

Found it now, thanks Rob.

[Rob Lightbody]

I cant work out how to post onto their discussion page.

HOWEVER

Before we go there, I'd like to take each point here and make sure we're clear about it, before wasting their time.  I must admit I'm gobsmacked that the actual heading of the article is incorrect and reinforces the myth that she was an RMS.  It would be OK if it said something like 'also incorrectly known as RMS...'.  Unless we can clarify somewhere on the article that she is NOT an RMS, and never was, I'll be giving up in exasperation and going no further.