• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Wikipedia and breaking news stories

Status
Not open for further replies.

2HAP

Member
Joined
12 Apr 2016
Messages
467
Location
Hadlow
Having seen the complaints in the Stonehaven derailment thread (https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/stonehaven-derailment.207648/) and the invitation by an Admin here to raise the issue in this forum, I thought I'd post my thoughts.

I've been an editor on Wikipedia for almost 15 years, and an Admin for almost 11. I've written about 2,200 articles and contributed to about 5,900 others, mostly on the English language Wikipedia , but also on other language Wikipedias.

When a major event happens, Wikipedians are usually pretty quick off the mark in creating an article. It is usual to have a "current events" template at the top of the article, which includes a disclaimer that info may not be up to date or accurate. These articles tend to have a lot of editors working on them, and speculation, original research and vandalism are usually quickly removed. As time goes on, and more information comes to light, the article gets better and becomes more reliable. Examples of this are the recent plane crash in India (Air India Express Flight 3144) and the massive explosion in Beirut (2020 Beirut explosions).

It was said in the Stonehaven derailment thread that the article was written by enthusiasts. Most of the editors contributing will not be enthusiasts. Another complaint raised was that the article should not have been written so soon. From experience, it is far easier to write an article "live" as it were, rather than say, a month after it has happened. You are not going to stop Wikipedians from doing this.

Almost anyone can edit Wikipedia, you don't even have to register an account. The most important thing to remember when adding material is to say where it came from. If it is a website, and you are unable correctly format a reference, then a bare url is fine. Other editors can sort out the reference formatting at a later time. Once you get into it and learn the coding, it soon becomes second nature to use the templates to reference material.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Journeyman

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2014
Messages
6,295
I think the problem at times like these is that someone will get a thrill out of being first to update it, and we're likely to get unsubstantiated wibble of the worst kind. :(
 

Chris M

Member
Joined
4 Feb 2012
Messages
1,057
Location
London E14
Indeed on this occasion two articles were started, one called "Stonehaven derailment" and the other "Stonehaven rail crash". I took the decision to merge them, moving information from the latter article to the former.

While some people might get a "thrill" at being the first to update it, that's irrelevant. Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth, so anything that is "unsubstantiated wibble" or otherwise not verifiable is very quickly removed from the article - indeed articles about breaking major news events are usually among the busiest articles on the project so they improve very quickly - far more quickly than on articles about historic events where fewer eyes mean errors can go undetected much longer.
 

dosxuk

Established Member
Joined
2 Jan 2011
Messages
1,742
If they weren't allowed to create new articles for news events, when would they be allowed to create it? An hour after it starts? A day? Maybe a week after the initial response is complete? Or not until a complete investigation has finished? And if you're not allowed to create the article about the incident, what about mentioning it on other pages? IMHO, creating it straight away is the only sensible option, which retains the option to delete if it later turns out to not be a notable event.

we're likely to get unsubstantiated wibble of the worst kind

That's the case with every single page on Wikipedia. Follow the references and decide if it's a valid resource before assuming anything on any page on there is true. The page is flagged that it may be unreliable and changing rapidly, I'm not sure what else people want really?
 

GRALISTAIR

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2012
Messages
7,806
Location
Dalton GA USA & Preston Lancs
I used to be a Wikipedia editor - but have not done so since May. I used to contribute financially but no longer do so. Still believe on balance it is a VERY useful resource.

References and verifiability are key.
 

mmh

Established Member
Joined
13 Aug 2016
Messages
3,744
I think the problem at times like these is that someone will get a thrill out of being first to update it, and we're likely to get unsubstantiated wibble of the worst kind. :(

Have you read it? What in it do you consider "unsubstantiated wibble of the worst kind"?

There are valid arguments against open encyclopaedias, but this particular article's content doesn't appear to be controversial.
 

GRALISTAIR

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2012
Messages
7,806
Location
Dalton GA USA & Preston Lancs
Another complaint raised was that the article should not have been written so soon. From experience, it is far easier to write an article "live" as it were, rather than say, a month after it has happened. You are not going to stop Wikipedians from doing this.

This is absolutely correct. Can always edit and other editors edit live too.
 

Journeyman

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2014
Messages
6,295
Have you read it? What in it do you consider "unsubstantiated wibble of the worst kind"?

There are valid arguments against open encyclopaedias, but this particular article's content doesn't appear to be controversial.

I'm saying it's a possibility. It hasn't happened on this article yet, and I hope it doesn't, but it can.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
On the point of "unsubstantiated wibble" the article in question reads:

's 06:43 Inter7City service from Aberdeen to Glasgow Queen Street (running as 1T08), travelling southbound along the former Aberdeen Railway line, had turned back north after encountering a landslip, crossing to the correct line at Carmont,[7][a] near the site of the former Carmont railway station, just outside Stonehaven. The train, an HST, comprised four coaches sandwiched by two power cars,[8] then encountered another landslip[7]a and all but the rear power car derailed.[8]b

Reference 7 is Alistair Dalton's reporting in The Scotsman. The article reads:

Rail journalist Phil Haigh tweeted: “Train derailed was 0638 Aberdeen-Glasgow.

"It stopped south of Carmont having seen a landslip.
"It was returning north, initially on the southbound line, then on the northbound having crossed at Carmont.
"It then hit a second landslip and derailed as it was returning to Stonehaven.”

So the at first glance authoritative newspaper source is in fact just quoting a twitter post, itself with no references or substantiation, making it as good as wibble IMO. Until a RAIB report, or other confirmation of events from an industry body, is published the whole 'Incident' section ought to come across a lot less definitively. I'd also question the value of putting in the train's headcode, whilst not unnecessary it's also not necessary and just comes across as somebody trying to appear 'in the know' - my 2p
 

2HAP

Member
Joined
12 Apr 2016
Messages
467
Location
Hadlow
Rail journalist Phil Haigh tweeted: “Train derailed was 0638 Aberdeen-Glasgow.

"It stopped south of Carmont having seen a landslip.
"It was returning north, initially on the southbound line, then on the northbound having crossed at Carmont.
"It then hit a second landslip and derailed as it was returning to Stonehaven.”

AFAIK, Philip Haigh is a regular contributor to Rail magazine. Thus he has more credibility in this area than Alistair Dalton.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
AFAIK, Philip Haigh is a regular contributor to Rail magazine. Thus he has more credibility in this area than Alistair Dalton.

I know that he contributes to RAIL magazine, but that of itself doesn't mean anything. Various RAIL contributors have said all sorts on twitter over the years, and sometimes they're correct. If Haigh had tweeted "control logs state xyz" then it'd be authoritative and I wouldn't have an issue with it, but as it's just him tweeting it without any sources it has zero credibility. The fact that he contributes to the magazine doesn't mean that his tweets can be taken as factual.
 

2HAP

Member
Joined
12 Apr 2016
Messages
467
Location
Hadlow
I note that there has been no mention of the article about the Llangennech derailment article on the thread about the derailment. Is that because there were no human casualties? Another thing I've noticed is that there is rarely any criticism when there is a major accident abroad and an article is created. The criticism re the Stonehaven article may be because it was on home turf and thus a topic that affected some members personally. Three weeks on, the article is well developed and earlier speculation has been replaced with hard facts. Please take a look at the article and see for yourself.
 

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
15,982
Location
0036
As a Wikipedia administrator, I can say that the main deciding point on whether an article will be created is going to be whether someone has the time, energy, and interest to do so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top