Why Wikipedia should not be used as a single reference source

[Northmoor]

In an idle moment at work (my search history at work doesn't contain anything dodgy because it's rightly monitored, but some might find it weird), I was looking at this page today:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_02

 

I did enjoy the bit about the "travels" of D2860, preserved at the NRM, whoever added that entry was clearly on mushrooms at the time.  I think I'd have read more elsewhere about a 4-wheeled shunter travelling several thousand miles around the UK rail network. 

 

Universities teach students that when referencing research sources, you NEVER use Wikipedia as a single source.  This is why, and remember that some previously well-respected standard railway publications have been debunked in recent years.

[frobisher]

To be fair, you should always check that the bit in Wikipedia you're reading is properly referenced (as the section containing the travels of D2860 clearly isn't if you look at the warning at the top of it) before accepting it as anything approaching fact.

[DCB]

Ee that were a sight were that, D2860 coming up Shap en rote from London to Inverness, steam pouring out of pressure cap on't radiator. Spare jerry cans of diesel stacked all round running plate and on bonnet, Old Sid Leggit emptying the cans into the diesel tank as she flew up bank side rods flashing in't moonlight.  if I hadn't seen it myself I wouldn't have believed it. I said to my mate Drog from the planet Amos 111 who were down on Earth sampling Cumbrian home brew with me and the lads, Drog, I said, If I hadn't saw that I wouldn't have believed it.   Aye  he said, I was expecting a Webb Compound.

[F-UnitMad]

51 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

In an idle moment at work

A what??!!?? I must be obviously am in the wrong job.... 🙄 🤪

[Wheatley]

Well D2866 was apparently broken up for spares at Peak Rail where it now operates regularly and is in good condition, so anythings possible I suppose. 

 

I've got 19 Ferarris in my garage. 

[br2975]

1 hour ago, Northmoor said:

Universities teach students that when referencing research sources, you NEVER use Wikipedia as a single source.  This is why, and remember that some previously well-respected standard railway publications have been debunked in recent years.

.

From my 'A' Levels (1974) a common phrase was "one book is copying, two books is research"

[br2975]

I must admit, I very, very, rarely ever consult Wikipedia for railway information; and when I do, I don't take it as gospel..

.

Being 'old school' I believe in conducting my  own research (wherever possible) by tried and trusted methods; a pastime that seems to be falling by the wayside if threads and posts to socila media are concerned....... where a growing number of 'modellers' and 'enthusiasts' make immediate recourse to posting a question to a social media group or forum; questions which sometimes could easily be answered if they conducted their own research.

.

It appears to me this growing number of enthusiasts and modellers are relying on the goodwill of others to answer their questions, and are allowing the pleasures of conducting their own research to pass them by.

.

 

Edited September 7, 2022 by br2975

[RobinofLoxley]

Wikipedia entries are not guaranteed true but are an order of magnitude safer than unverified internet sources that an alarming percentage of the population seem to accept without question. 

[pH]

I quite often use Wikipedia as a first source on a subject I know little about. The ‘References’ in an entry can be useful for further research. Or the contents of the entry itself can suggest other places to look for more information. 
 

(Never mind Wikipedia, there are several well-known authors of books and articles on railway subjects that I would never use as a single reference source. In fact, some I would just not use as a reference source at all!)

[Paul H Vigor]

44 minutes ago, Wheatley said:

Well D2866 was apparently broken up for spares at Peak Rail where it now operates regularly and is in good condition, so anythings possible I suppose. 

 

I've got 19 Ferarris in my garage. 

For one wild moment I imagined your 19 Furarris were a new breed of racing hamster! It's been a LONG LONG day! 

[Hroth]

55 minutes ago, Paul H Vigor said:

It's been a LONG LONG day! 

 

And its not over yet...  😬

 

But it is now!

 

Edited September 7, 2022 by Hroth

[DCB]

Always best to use multiple sources, different people have different perspectives on events. I believe Churchill said, "History shall treat me kindly, for I shall write it."   

In many ways contemporary accounts are valuable for time lines, but later ones can be more honest as libeling  dead people is less expensive   Even the most trusted sources get it wrong sometimes,   However just because a loco was cut up in 1965 doesn't mean it isn't preserved, thinking Rood Ashton Hall here. I have seen GSWR locos with indirect Stephensons link motion described as "Improved" by removing the rockers in some accounts and probably more likely described as totally ruined by the same work.  Just read as much as you can and give sources where possible.

 

[The Johnster]

Wikipedia is what it is, and no decent research should ever be taken from a single source if possible.  It's information is a lot more accurate than some of the stuff that the internet vomits at you!  It is fundamentally self-correcting over time, as errors are noticed and corrected by users.  Nobody's perfect, and I can certainly think of railway reference books that contain incorrect or misleading information.

[Hal Nail]

7 hours ago, br2975 said:

It appears to me this growing number of enthusiasts and modellers are relying on the goodwill of others to answer their questions

 

88.2%* of RMWeb queries can be answered by cutting and pasting into Google. If you add "RMWeb" you get the 3 previous threads on the same subject.

 

*source: Vic Reeves

 

 

Edited September 8, 2022 by Hal Nail
typo

[Phil Bullock]

9 hours ago, Northmoor said:

In an idle moment at work (my search history at work doesn't contain anything dodgy because it's rightly monitored, but some might find it weird), I was looking at this page today:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_02

 

I did enjoy the bit about the "travels" of D2860, preserved at the NRM, whoever added that entry was clearly on mushrooms at the time.  I think I'd have read more elsewhere about a 4-wheeled shunter travelling several thousand miles around the UK rail network. 

 

Universities teach students that when referencing research sources, you NEVER use Wikipedia as a single source.  This is why, and remember that some previously well-respected standard railway publications have been debunked in recent years.

Was that D2860 page written by Sam’s Trains perhaps? 

[MyRule1]

47 minutes ago, Phil Bullock said:

Was that D2860 page written by Sam’s Trains perhaps? 

To be fair there is a citation for the alleged travels of this loco, it's. https://www.locoscene.co.uk/loco_numbers/1gpjrlL0.

 

This gives us a name arriva_142 as the source.

 

A further search then brings this page up

 

https://www.flickr.com/people/arriva_142/

 

And not an 02 to be seen.

 

I know nothing about Loco scene other than what it says on its Homepage.

[Ramblin Rich]

22 minutes ago, MyRule1 said:

To be fair there is a citation for the alleged travels of this loco, it's. https://www.locoscene.co.uk/loco_numbers/1gpjrlL0.

 

This gives us a name arriva_142 as the source.

 

A further search then brings this page up

 

https://www.flickr.com/people/arriva_142/

 

And not an 02 to be seen.

 

I know nothing about Loco scene other than what it says on its Homepage.

I think the pages are a record of locos seen on the journeys listed, so for example this page

https://www.locoscene.co.uk/spotting_sessions/qQjGMjmL

lists locos seen during a journey from Birmingham International to Harrogate (Belmond Northern Belle Tour) (23/04/2016). I think it's more realistic to say D2860 was seen at York during that journey - not that it made the trip itself!

[Hroth]

22 minutes ago, Ramblin Rich said:

I think the pages are a record of locos seen on the journeys listed, so for example this page

https://www.locoscene.co.uk/spotting_sessions/qQjGMjmL

lists locos seen during a journey from Birmingham International to Harrogate (Belmond Northern Belle Tour) (23/04/2016). I think it's more realistic to say D2860 was seen at York during that journey - not that it made the trip itself!

 

I suppose it has spent some time behind one of those "Train Trucker" artics...

 

[Hibelroad]

I think you have cracked it! It’s does look like these are logs of journeys where the loco was seen and they could be the basis of the “research” which was used for the D2860 Wikipedia entry. Some people swear by the internet and claim that it contains all the worlds knowledge but I have found very little useful information (this Forum excepted of course) and think the internet is only useful for TV and shopping. 

[kevinlms]

7 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Wikipedia is what it is, and no decent research should ever be taken from a single source if possible.  It's information is a lot more accurate than some of the stuff that the internet vomits at you!  It is fundamentally self-correcting over time, as errors are noticed and corrected by users.  Nobody's perfect, and I can certainly think of railway reference books that contain incorrect or misleading information.

A lot depends on what purpose you are 'researching' for. If you are just looking for basic info on a locomotive class (keeping it on prototype railways for now), such as quantity, years built, dimensions, even areas of operation and traffic types, then Wikipedia can't really do much wrong. It's when people start taking it further that you can start going astray. Especially when you start going into personal opinions (meaning the contributor to Wikipedia), then anything goes.

[DCB]

2 hours ago, Hal Nail said:

 

88.2%* of RMWeb queries can be answered by cutting and pasting into Google. If you add "RMWeb" you get the 3 previous threads on the same subject.

 

*source: Vic Reeves

 

 

That is sort of true, BUT some people refer readers to previous articles instead of providing an answer.  That is sort of all right except content gets lost when web pages crash, change hosts, etc and content especially photographs and in my case diagrams get lost or deleted. Lots of my stuff was lost with the RMWeb changes about 18 months(?) ago.  In the wider web  Lots of invaluable web sites we have referred people to have died with their owners, owners who found time to post when they retired and then died a few years later leaving nobody  to pay the hosting fee for their sites whch go offline and so the content becomes lost.     If someone asks a question I always try to give an answer  even if it is a cut and paste with an appropriate "Harvard"  reference.

Edited September 8, 2022 by DCB

[Northmoor]

39 minutes ago, Hibelroad said:

I think you have cracked it! It’s does look like these are logs of journeys where the loco was seen and they could be the basis of the “research” which was used for the D2860 Wikipedia entry. Some people swear by the internet and claim that it contains all the worlds knowledge but I have found very little useful information (this Forum excepted of course) and think the internet is only useful for TV and shopping. 

Yes, a journey made to Inverness (via York) is assumed to mean the loco was seen in Inverness.  Perhaps their notebooks were just lists of numbers and the date, but not the location where seen?

 

I would say that the WWW is an exceptionally useful research tool, you just have to exercise caution.  With books, there has normally been some editorial control over the content, so the glaring errors get removed (usually).  With the Web, there is no such control on most sites, so people can write the most outrageous rubbish and there is nothing to show that the site is the private rantings of a (perceived) wronged individual.  Which is where Alternative Facts come in....

[kevinlms]

5 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

 Which is where Alternative Facts come in....

I thought if it appears on the internet it must be true - oh how I have been deceived! 😇

[SteamingWales]

12 hours ago, Northmoor said:

Universities teach students that when referencing research sources, you NEVER use Wikipedia as a single source.

 

As a recent graduate I can vouch for this.

 

The trick is to use Wikipedia, but scroll down to the reference list at the bottom and pull all the relevant information on the subject from there. N.B I got a first class degree so must have done something right 😅

[kevinlms]

13 minutes ago, DCB said:

That is sort of true, BUT some people refer readers to previous articles instead of providing an answer.  That is sort of all right except content gets lost when web pages crash, change hosts, etc and content especially photographs and in my case diagrams get lost or deleted. Lots of my stuff was lost with the RMWeb changes about 18 months(?) ago.  In the wider web  Lots of invaluable web sites we have referred people to have died with their owners, owners who found time to post when they retired and then died a few years later leaving nobody  to pay the hosting fee for their sites whch go offline and so the content becomes lost.     If someone asks a question I always try to give an answer  even if it is a cut and paste with an appropriate "Harvard"  reference.

Of course older information might have been correct AT THE TIME IT WAS WRITTEN, but things have moved on since than, and so it is perhaps worth asking if 'such and such preserved loco, is it still at that given location'?