RMweb Premium Compound2632 Posted September 9, 2022 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 9, 2022 1 hour ago, jjb1970 said: A hidden risk in some fields is the false consensus. Which is an issue with Wikipedia, whose policy is to favour the consensus of the majority of sources. This means that if new research comes along demonstrating that the previous consensus was incorrect, it can be very hard to get a Wikipedia entry changed to reflect this new knowledge. In the worst cases this can perpetuate falsehoods about individuals. 3 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Northmoor Posted September 9, 2022 Author RMweb Premium Share Posted September 9, 2022 4 minutes ago, Compound2632 said: Which is an issue with Wikipedia, whose policy is to favour the consensus of the majority of sources. This means that if new research comes along demonstrating that the previous consensus was incorrect, it can be very hard to get a Wikipedia entry changed to reflect this new knowledge. In the worst cases this can perpetuate falsehoods about individuals. Which is why the often heard phrase, "You can't re-write history" is so completely and utterly wrong. If it were true, every historian would be out of a job. You can most certainly re-write history in light of new evidence, even if what you can't do with history is change it. 1 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium spamcan61 Posted September 9, 2022 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 9, 2022 15 minutes ago, Compound2632 said: Which is an issue with Wikipedia, whose policy is to favour the consensus of the majority of sources. .. or the most persistent of editors (as illustrated in this thread). 2 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Johnster Posted September 9, 2022 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 9, 2022 1 hour ago, MyRule1 said: As thhis is RMweb my last example is railway related, I can guarantee that at least once a year I will be told by a visitor to our museum that "my father/grandfather drove the Flying Scotsman". This is a classic example. When someone believes a relative drove the Flying Scotsman, first you have to determine if a) they drove or fired or were a secondman on the train of that name, b) they drove A3s that were like the locomotive FS, or c) they drove/fired etc on routes where A3s were used. Non-railway people can, for instance, easily become confused with the whole Flying Scot/Royal Scotsman mess, calling locomotives trains, and the difference between a train and a locomotive that share a name. They tell you that gramps drove FS in good faith, but are unwittingly uncertain of the thing they are describing. Or d) they drove FS. There was a story on one of the threads here a couple of years ago about a lady at a show who claimed her great-uncle drove 'that engine', a model Mallard, at 126mph. The thread contributor feigned polite interest and, in a spirit of calling her out on the nonsense, asked the lady would mind leaving her name and address so that he could follow up. It was a Miss Duddington... 9 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenny Emily Posted September 10, 2022 Share Posted September 10, 2022 16 hours ago, Compound2632 said: Which is an issue with Wikipedia, whose policy is to favour the consensus of the majority of sources. This means that if new research comes along demonstrating that the previous consensus was incorrect, it can be very hard to get a Wikipedia entry changed to reflect this new knowledge. In the worst cases this can perpetuate falsehoods about individuals. Apparently Terry Pratchett once tried to edit something on the page about himself because it was wrong, only to have it reverted because he ‘didn’t cite a source’ 7 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Reorte Posted September 11, 2022 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 11, 2022 On 10/09/2022 at 07:35, Jenny Emily said: Apparently Terry Pratchett once tried to edit something on the page about himself because it was wrong, only to have it reverted because he ‘didn’t cite a source’ That's fair enough. How's anyone else supposed to know that it was indeed Terry Pratchett, and that he was being honest and accurate? Whilst I'm sure he would be there are plenty of other people out there who certainly wouldn't write accurate information about themselves. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now