How useful is Wikipedia as a resource?

ABB125 · 3 Apr 2020

Wikipedia is a useful resource for many things. However, it can also be infuriating at times.
Nearly all my edits, which are generally along the lines of rewriting content and correcting errors, have been undone by other users for a variety of reasons. Yet, other users' edits that are incorrect or misleading on the same pages are left as they are. It may just be bad luck, but does anyone else experience this?
I'm sure there are some Wikipedia users who spend their entire lives undoing other people's edits!

Do any forum users have any tips or advice on how to successfully edit Wikipedia pages without them being reversed?

RailUK Forums

najaB · 3 Apr 2020

ABB125 said:
Do any forum users have any tips or advice on how to successfully edit Wikipedia pages without them being reversed?

If you're not in the "in crowd" then good luck. Wikipedians can be very cliquey.

yorkie · 3 Apr 2020

Can you say which articles they are and what you added, which was reversed?

ABB125 · 3 Apr 2020

najaB said:
If you're not in the "in crowd" then good luck. Wikipedians can be very cliquey.

Yes, that does seem to be the case. For example, one of my edits was undone because there was "nothing wrong with the previous version", yet other users had also rewritten various sections in the recent past without being undone.

Lucan · 3 Apr 2020

My edits have generally stayed put. It probably depends how controversial or "interesting" the topic is. I have done edits in areas like minority hobby interests, history, and 19th century literature, and they have generally survived.

About ten years ago I replaced nearly all of the existing entry on a Victorian short story by my own words, because the previous editor(s) had fundamentally misunderstood it. They were miles off target. I then forgot about the matter until recently when out of curiosity I looked at that page again. My wording was still there, with some minor corrections which were OK. However when I looked at the edit history I saw that about six years ago someone had replaced everything I had written by a load of touchy-feely semi-mystical tripe. But then someone else, a few weeks later, had restored everything back to my version - very gratifying!

What are the reasons given by those people removing your edits?

ABB125 · 3 Apr 2020

yorkie said:
Can you say which articles they are and what you added, which was reversed?

I can't remember all of them, but one I did earlier today was the class 90 page (it was mentioned in the stored class 90s thread, so I had a look. I decided to rewrite the introduction bit because I felt it wasn't written in the best way (but also, to be honest, to see what would happen if I did). All the same information was there, just in a different order.
Within about an hour, someone had undone it.

ABB125 · 3 Apr 2020

Lucan said:
My edits have generally stayed put. It probably depends how controversial or "interesting" the topic is. I have done edits in areas like minority hobby interests, history, and 19th century literature, and they have generally survived.

About ten years ago I replaced nearly all of the existing entry on a Victorian short story by my own words, because the previous editor(s) had fundamentally misunderstood it. They were miles off target. I then forgot about the matter until recently when out of curiosity I looked at that page again. My wording was still there, with some minor corrections which were OK. However when I looked at the edit history I saw that about six years ago someone had replaced everything I had written by a load of touchy-feely semi-mystical tripe. But then someone else, a few weeks later, had restored everything back to my version - very gratifying!

What are the reasons given by those people removing your edits?

As I've put above (possibly while you were typing), "the previous version is fine".
Another was when I had a go at expanding the Today's Railways page (currently about 3 sentences). It was shortly removed for being unsourced, which is a reasonable reason, but how do you source something which has virtually no online presence?

Bevan Price · 3 Apr 2020

The world contains a proportion of "know-it-all"s, who think they are always right, so anybody who dares to criticise them, or point out errors, must be wrong.

dosxuk · 3 Apr 2020

People can see for themselves here - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_Rail_Class_90&diff=948908183&oldid=948898709

Posted by ABB125 said:
The [[British Rail]] '''Class 90''' [[electric locomotive]]s were built by [[British Rail Engineering Limited]] at [[Crewe Works]] in 1987-1990 to haul express passenger and heavy [[Cargo|freight]] trains on routes electrified with [[overhead lines]] at [[25 kV AC railway electrification|25 kV AC]]. As built, the locomotives weigh 84.5 [[tonnes]], have a top speed of {{convert|110|mph|km/h|0|abbr=on}} and produce {{convert|5000|bhp|abbr=on|lk=in}}.

Original version said:
The [[British Rail]] '''Class 90''' [[electric locomotive]]s were built by [[British Rail Engineering Limited]] at [[Crewe Works]] in 1987-1990, weighing 84.5 [[tonnes]] and with a top speed of {{convert|110|mph|km/h|0|abbr=on}}. They operate from [[25 kV AC railway electrification|25 kV AC]] [[overhead lines]] and produce {{convert|5000|bhp|abbr=on|lk=in}}. The class is employed on express passenger and heavy [[Cargo|freight]] trains.

I agree with the revert, the original version was better.

yorkie · 3 Apr 2020

Nothing wrong with the original that I can see.

ABB125 · 3 Apr 2020

dosxuk said:
People can see for themselves here - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_Rail_Class_90&diff=948908183&oldid=948898709

I agree with the revert, the original version was better.

yorkie said:
Nothing wrong with the original that I can see.

No, there's nothing wrong with it.
However, I personally think it's more logical to say that "...were built for xxx purpose and have xxx characteristics" rather than the other way round.
But, your opinions are just as valid as mine; it just seems that no-one ever agrees with me.

GRALISTAIR · 4 Apr 2020

yorkie said:
Can you say which articles they are and what you added, which was reversed?

This is key. There is a certain editor who shall not be named who is quite senior and undoes a lot of railway edits. However, I very rarely get any of my chemistry/ materials science or corrosion engineering edits undone. On the contrary senior editors will often revert an edit to my version. It is extremely subject dependent. I have written as original writer quite a few articles. I edit under the same user name as on here btw GRALISTAIR.

telstarbox · 4 Apr 2020

I've been a Wikipedia editor for years. My editing usually involves tidying up existing content (spelling errors, adding subheadings, rewriting long sentences), but I do add new content as well.

When adding content, it's much more likely to stay up if you include reliable sources with the <ref> tags.

I'm quite pleased with this article which was mostly written by @Hassocks5489 and me:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_National_Rail_ticket_features

telstarbox · 4 Apr 2020

ABB125 said:
As I've put above (possibly while you were typing), "the previous version is fine".
Another was when I had a go at expanding the Today's Railways page (currently about 3 sentences). It was shortly removed for being unsourced, which is a reasonable reason, but how do you source something which has virtually no online presence?

You can source books, journals, TV programmes etc if necessary and there are conventions for this. It is a common problem though - you can write up something about British life which most people would instantly recognise, and then some editor in Arkansas reverts it for a lack of sourcing

Xenophon PCDGS · 4 Apr 2020

telstarbox said:
I've been a Wikipedia editor for years. My editing usually involves tidying up existing content (spelling errors, adding subheadings, rewriting long sentences), but I do add new content as well.

I have been editing on Wikipedia since 2011 and my specific area concerns anything railway-related, especially historical items. I have noticed of late that some of the more highly respected senior editors that I had much dealings with over the years such as @useddenim now appear to have retired from the Wikipedia website.

telstarbox · 4 Apr 2020

I've seen your name pop up on articles Paul

superalbs · 4 Apr 2020

I find them to get it right most times, except for whoever keeps adding in those awful diagrams.

ABB125 · 4 Apr 2020

superalbs said:
I find them to get it right most times, except for whoever keeps adding in those awful diagrams.

Do you mean the train diagrams on TOC pages?

superalbs · 4 Apr 2020

ABB125 said:
Do you mean the train diagrams on TOC pages?

Yeah I do. Trying to get them removed now, but it's 'disruptive' apparently. As such now I will take it to a talk page to discuss it further.

telstarbox · 4 Apr 2020

Can you link to an example?

superalbs · 4 Apr 2020

telstarbox said:
Can you link to an example?

This one is particularly bad for clutter:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_158#Liveries

And this one is particularly bad for looking not a lot like the actual train:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_365#Fleet_details

At this point, they are almost everywhere, and make tables particularly hard to read.

Xenophon PCDGS · 5 Apr 2020

Not concerning the more "modern and generalised" RDT that appear with articles and also available as separate entities, but the RDT templates of those historical railways that also include both closed and open railway stations with different icons, named junctions and also links to associated railways are useful to people like myself with an interest in railway history. I have been running the Closed Stations Journey quiz on this RailUK website and tend to use the said Wikipedia information in addition to the excellent RAILSCOT information as supplementary aids to rather ancient railway maps as useful planning tools, as I both design and launch each new journey made. We are currently on journey number 787 in the series so far (Ponkey Crossing Halt to Kerry)

ABB125 · 5 Apr 2020

superalbs said:
This one is particularly bad for clutter:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_158#Liveries

And this one is particularly bad for looking not a lot like the actual train:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_365#Fleet_details

At this point, they are almost everywhere, and make tables particularly hard to read.

I think that one diagram is probably a useful addition to the page, but not in every livery ever used! As you say, it looks rather cluttered.

Ianno87 · 5 Apr 2020

There is some Wikipedia editor who *insists* that the Cornbook-Broadway extension of Manchester Metrolink opened on 12th June 1999. It didn't - it was 6th December 1999. Every edit I make to correct this gets reverted.

Whoever it is is mixing up 6/12 with 12/6...

ABB125 · 5 Apr 2020

Ianno87 said:
There is some Wikipedia editor who *insists* that the Cornbook-Broadway extension of Manchester Metrolink opened on 12th June 1999. It didn't - it was 6th December 1999. Every edit I make to correct this gets reverted.

Whoever it is is mixing up 6/12 with 12/6...

Has the incorrect date got a reference? If not, as long as you can find a reference for the correct date (which I wouldn't have thought to be difficult!) surely you have "authority" over their unsourced claim?

telstarbox · 5 Apr 2020

ABB125 said:
I think that one diagram is probably a useful addition to the page, but not in every livery ever used! As you say, it looks rather cluttered.

I've tried tidying up the Class 158 one - see what you think.

ABB125 · 5 Apr 2020

telstarbox said:
I've tried tidying up the Class 158 one - see what you think.

Whilst in the previous version the diagrams were a bit big, I think in your version they're a bit small. A livery section should (in my opinion) be something that you can easily glance at to see the differences and features of liveries. Is there any way to make the diagrams a bit bigger, but still in those boxes? (I'm not very familiar with how formatting works on Wikipedia, or what the range of things which can be done is.)
Also, I wonder why there is a 3-car GWR diagram, but not a 3-car Northern one? Does the 3-car add anything to the page?

telstarbox · 5 Apr 2020

I won't do it now but you can add the "px" parameter within the gallery section to control this. You can also click on each image to view it at full size.

Re the Northern one - I just reformatted what was already there.

D365 · 8 Apr 2020

superalbs said:
And this one is particularly bad for looking not a lot like the actual train:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_365#Fleet_details

The cab ends look more akin to a Class 332!

XAM2175 · 11 Nov 2022

Clarence Yard said:
No. It was “published” on here, by me! I was intimately involved with their introduction onto GWR. I was also on those trial trips, carrying out the fuel range calculations on the various engine scenarios. For the initial tests we went from Paddington to Parkway and back for a few days.

You must understand then that, for anybody who isn't you or who doesn't know you, this reduces to "Wikipedia is wrong because I say it is".

How useful is Wikipedia as a resource?

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member