Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic: wikipedia  (Read 1769 times)

Offline anpefa1

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 656
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
wikipedia
« on: Saturday 13 May 23 23:35 BST (UK) »
why do family related messages posted on rootschat appear on wikipedia tony
uk. beale, bateman, buss, bacon, pratt, purssell, reynolds, stamford, sumpter, sailsbury, turner, white nee phillips.
eire. carroll, connor, cronin, daly, fellowes, fitzgerald, gaynor, girvan, keogh, meade, moroney, reilly, whelan, white, winterlich.
scotland: mcavoy

Online Erato

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,933
  • Old Powder House, 1703
    • View Profile
Re: wikipedia
« Reply #1 on: Saturday 13 May 23 23:42 BST (UK) »
One of my RootsChat messages is cited as a source on Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Franklin_Ware
Wiltshire:  Banks, Taylor
Somerset:  Duddridge, Richards, Barnard, Pillinger
Gloucestershire:  Barnard, Marsh, Crossman
Bristol:  Banks, Duddridge, Barnard
Down:  Ennis, McGee
Wicklow:  Chapman, Pepper
Wigtownshire:  Logan, Conning
Wisconsin:  Ennis, Chapman, Logan, Ware
Maine:  Ware, Mitchell, Tarr, Davis

Offline Kiltpin

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,201
  • Stand and be Counted
    • View Profile
Re: wikipedia
« Reply #2 on: Sunday 14 May 23 00:01 BST (UK) »
Quote from: anpefa1 on Saturday 13 May 23 23:35 BST (UK)
why do family related messages posted on rootschat appear on wikipedia tony
 

As a Wikipedia editor, I can tell you that the object of Wikipedia is not "Truth" (although that is very nice and desirable), but rather "Verifiability". Some newspapers (the Sun, The Sun on Sunday, The Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday) are considered to be unreliable and cannot be used as sources. 

Normally a forum (such as this) would not be regarded as reliable, but if posts get locked after a certain amount of time, that increases the reliability. 

Regards 

Chas


Whannell - Eaton - Jackson
India - Scotland - Australia

Offline anpefa1

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 656
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: wikipedia
« Reply #3 on: Sunday 14 May 23 00:05 BST (UK) »
in this day and age of online scams and fraud I am rather perturbed by this. T 
uk. beale, bateman, buss, bacon, pratt, purssell, reynolds, stamford, sumpter, sailsbury, turner, white nee phillips.
eire. carroll, connor, cronin, daly, fellowes, fitzgerald, gaynor, girvan, keogh, meade, moroney, reilly, whelan, white, winterlich.
scotland: mcavoy

Offline Dundee

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,510
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: wikipedia
« Reply #4 on: Sunday 14 May 23 04:28 BST (UK) »
What have online scams and fraud got to do with references cited on Wikipedia?

Debra  :)

Offline arthurk

  • Deceased † Rest In Peace
  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • ********
  • Posts: 5,376
    • View Profile
Re: wikipedia
« Reply #5 on: Sunday 14 May 23 11:00 BST (UK) »
Quote from: Kiltpin on Sunday 14 May 23 00:01 BST (UK)
Normally a forum (such as this) would not be regarded as reliable, but if posts get locked after a certain amount of time, that increases the reliability. 

Do you mean posts that get 'pinned' rather than 'locked'? I thought the idea here was that threads remained open for ever so that they can be reactivated by new researchers; as far as I'm aware, 'locking' is for threads that become too long, too far off-topic, or too heated - none of which seems to me to guarantee reliability.

Offline Kiltpin

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,201
  • Stand and be Counted
    • View Profile
Re: wikipedia
« Reply #6 on: Sunday 14 May 23 11:55 BST (UK) »
Quote from: arthurk on Sunday 14 May 23 11:00 BST (UK)
Quote from: Kiltpin on Sunday 14 May 23 00:01 BST (UK)
Normally a forum (such as this) would not be regarded as reliable, but if posts get locked after a certain amount of time, that increases the reliability. 

Do you mean posts that get 'pinned' rather than 'locked'? I thought the idea here was that threads remained open for ever so that they can be reactivated by new researchers; as far as I'm aware, 'locking' is for threads that become too long, too far off-topic, or too heated - none of which seems to me to guarantee reliability.
 

Sorry, if I did not make myself clear. It was posts that I meant. Many forums allow modification of a post, by the author, for a limited length of time. It is often an automatic process. 7 Days, or 72 hours, or whatever after the post is made, then the "Modify" button disappears, or is greyed out. That type of forum is ideal as a source as it can no longer be modified. 

Regards 

Chas
Whannell - Eaton - Jackson
India - Scotland - Australia

Offline Kiltpin

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,201
  • Stand and be Counted
    • View Profile
Re: wikipedia
« Reply #7 on: Sunday 14 May 23 12:28 BST (UK) »
Quote from: anpefa1 on Sunday 14 May 23 00:05 BST (UK)
in this day and age of online scams and fraud I am rather perturbed by this. T
 

A little known "Wikifact" - There are many hundreds of automated bots scouring Wikipedia articles and their sources. Some look for sources which are advertising; some look for sources from dis-allowed publications; some look for irrelevant links; some look for self-publication; the list goes on and on.   

If a bot gets confused as to the legitimacy of a source, it is flagged up to a patroller. These are editors (such as myself), who then manually check the sources. A new page will have as many as 20 bots checking it, and then again every quarter. If the article is stable with no new edits, then the checks become yearly (sources get moved, removed, die). 

University students find it great fun to try and cheat Wikipedia. When discovered, the penalties are severe. The whole of Oxford University and all its Collages and ancillary Departments were banned from editing for 6 months. There were grovelling apologies to the Wikimedia Board, but the ban remained for the whole of the 6 months. They were told that a second infringement would incur a permanent ban. 

Regards 

Chas
Whannell - Eaton - Jackson
India - Scotland - Australia

Offline arthurk

  • Deceased † Rest In Peace
  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • ********
  • Posts: 5,376
    • View Profile
Re: wikipedia
« Reply #8 on: Sunday 14 May 23 15:34 BST (UK) »
Quote from: Kiltpin on Sunday 14 May 23 11:55 BST (UK)
Sorry, if I did not make myself clear. It was posts that I meant. Many forums allow modification of a post, by the author, for a limited length of time. It is often an automatic process. 7 Days, or 72 hours, or whatever after the post is made, then the "Modify" button disappears, or is greyed out. That type of forum is ideal as a source as it can no longer be modified. 

Ah, I see what you mean, but isn't it rather ironic that Wikipedia - a site whose articles are permanently subject to amendment - prefers to use pages (or posts) which cannot be edited, even though there's no certainty that they're giving correct information? From what you say, it sounds as though "reliability" is more to do with the permanence of a link than the accuracy of its content.
Pages: [1] 2