Is it once, twice, thrice a week that someone complains about how naff Wiki entries on our most favourite and beloved of historical subjects are?
Why don't we go right ahead and correct them?
Is it viable to set up a subforum, a bit like the Deepeeka forum, where each entry has its own thread and a link at the head of the thread, and we go ahead and discuss the entry? Once satisfied with a corrected and more informative entry, along with a list of sources, we go ahead and do the Wiki thing.
It's what it's there for.
Where there are conflicts of opinion, the different opinions are incorporated which just means the Wiki entry is more open and informative.
It would be important to keep the entries and parts that are correct as they exist now, so it's not a straightforward slash'n'burn exercise.
What does anyone think? It doesn't have to be done in a hurry.
Crispius said he tried but was not allowed access?
I managed to register a couple of weeks ago, so Crispus should try again. It might be the anti-bot "what characters do you see in this" box is trickier than usual and he simply got it wrong.
Hi,
the problem of Wikipedia is that anybody can edit articles. So we will create some article here with regard to recent scholarly studies on the subject etc. and put it on Wikipedia and some weeks or months later some other guy, who just reads his Osprey, will realize, that "in that Wikipedia article, there's a mistake and he knows it better, because in his Osprey, its different" (now I don't have anything against Osprey series - its just an example, so please don't take this comment as some sort of attack against Osprey titles). So he will go and "correct" it (of course without knowing all the other scholarly articles and monographs, primary sources etc.)... It would be necessary to constantly scan the articles and prevent such "correction". May be I'm too sceptical, but I think that contributing to Wikipedia is a waste of time and energy.
On the other hand, I agree with Tarbicus, that we can start this project with one alteration - I believe it would be much better to create the article but instead of adding it to Wikipedia, put in on RA.com, where there is much better control over who contributes and what he contributes. After all one of the original purposes of RA.com was to create an online encyclopedia of the Roman army.
Greetings
Alexandr
The thing is, (and I hate to say this but I'm just being realistic) RAT will never compete with Wikipedia. And the longer the wrong statements are on Wiki, the harder it'll become to correct in future., and the more misinforming will happen, and the more bellyaching will happen here.
Unless you take the info to the masses you have no grounds for complaint when they get it wrong. And let's face it, there are plenty of Wiki complaints here. If you want to stay an exclusive club fine, but look at what's happened with RAT members getting riled when a new bright spark floods the forum with Wiki entries, whereas he could have at least been posting correct content.
Quote:The thing is, (and I hate to say this but I'm just being realistic) RAT will never compete with Wikipedia. And the longer the wrong statements are on Wiki, the harder it'll become to correct in future., and the more misinforming will happen, and the more bellyaching will happen here.
Unless you take the info to the masses you have no grounds for complaint when they get it wrong.
I'm in full agreeance here. You'd be amazed at how many of my co-workers think Wiki is the best thing since the Cambridge or Brittanica encyclopedias. I saw Wiki's founder on a talk show once, and he said that they strive to maintain accurate information, admitting that one of the drawbacks is that they allow pretty much anyone to contribute. They do "scrub" the information, but with anyone and everyone dumping info in, they have a hard time keeping up. Maybe a moderator or someone else more involved with RA could get in touch with them. Propose something similar what Tarbicus suggested about the subform, like Deepeeka's and see what they say. I find it really hard to believe that they would
dislike receiving information from the likes of some of our members who either have been, or are, in the field examining ancient Rome first hand.
Quote:Crispius said he tried but was not allowed access?
I tried several years ago, but it didn't like AOL -- seemed to treat AOL as a single user, so if one AOL-using nutcase abused a Wikipedia entry it blocked us all. (AOL-users, I mean ... not nutcases.)
Hi,
well I agree to a certain degree. RA.com cannot compete with Wikipedia on the whole. But to create some sort of encyclopaedia of the Roman army on RA.com actually means bringing the info to the masses. The problem with information about the Roman army on internet is that apart from Wikipedia, there aren't many sites, where you can obtain information. I believe, that many people are aware of all the deficiencies of Wikipedia and if they had some alternative produced by people who seem to know something about the topic (ie. in our case the RA.com "encyclopaedia"), they would choose the alternative. So far they haven't a good alternative (digging info from RAT and from some small webs scattered all over the internet isn't very comfortable). And of course the main advantage is the control over the content we would have on RA.com and wouldn't have on Wikipedia.
The second impact of a possible RA.com encyclopaedia would be that the authors of articles on Wikipedia will probably become aware of it, will learn from it (if well researched and written), and will improve their articles on Wikipedia.
Greetings
Alexandr
But one doesn't stop the other; having a Wiki sub-forum here could also double up as a basis for an Encyclopedia here. There's no harm in having both happen.
And so what if someone changes the Wiki. You can get notification of changes so just go back and re-correct it. The fact is that there are some historians out there writing books and using Wiki as a source. Unbelievable as it may seem, it actually happens. If you're trying to compete with Wikipedia then good luck :wink:
Also bear in mind that not ALL entries on Wiki are wrong and worthless.
Quote:But one doesn't stop the other; having a Wiki sub-forum here could also double up as a basis for an Encyclopedia here. There's no harm in having both happen.
I agree. The projects aren't contradicting.
Quote:And so what if someone changes the Wiki. You can get notification of changes so just go back and re-correct it.
Constant correcting of (perhaps one day) some hundred or thousand articles on Wikipedia for the rest of your life... Good luck to you this time :wink:
Quote:Also bear in mind that not ALL entries on Wiki are wrong and worthless.
I've never said so.
I don't want to compete with Wikipedia. And I'm certainly not against this project. I just think it would be better to have the results on some web, where we would have more control over them.
Greetings
Alexandr
Quote:Hi,
well I agree to a certain degree. RA.com cannot compete with Wikipedia on the whole. But to create some sort of encyclopaedia of the Roman army on RA.com actually means bringing the info to the masses. <.......> And of course the main advantage is the control over the content we would have on RA.com and wouldn't have on Wikipedia.
The second impact of a possible RA.com encyclopaedia would be that the authors of articles on Wikipedia will probably become aware of it, will learn from it (if well researched and written), and will improve their articles on Wikipedia.
I've observed that much of the stuff from my
article wiki as well as informational articles on other subjects I've written that are available on the net, inevitably get "strip-mined" and placed on Wikipedia. The same happens to most other information repositiories (e.g. livius.org) I've seen.
Although Wikipedia usually contains acknowledgements these days (which I assume generates some traffic, though I've not checked recently), I suspect any attempt to "supersede" Wikipedia as a "better" source is pretty much a lost cause. Today, Wikipedia is to encyclopaedias what Google is to web-search. The only reason to pursue an independent repository rather than utilize Wikipedia is if one disagrees with the "system" of wikipedia, of which rules two commonly seem to cause a problem for academics = no original research, and no ownership.
Ave,
It also has to do with salesmen trying to make a buck. The only reason Wikipedia named a Parazonium as an ancient Greek weapon is because a third rate POS Replica manufacture wanted to sell their eagle handle dagger to more people. So, a common, and poorly reproduced modern dagger, suddenly becomes an ancient Roman weapon too! Also, if you like ancient Greece/Macedonia and Alexander the Great “this dagger’s for you too!â€
I understand the correcting Wikipedia could easily become something like the Toils of Hercules, but if we were to spread it amongst several of us, "many hands make light work." I would actively support and participate in such a sub-forum to the extent of my somewhat limited abilities.
I've always viewed Wiki as a quick shot reference to get a general idea on something, and when reading articles I try to double check the references...If any are listed at all...If it is well written, and has tons of hyerlinks to information and footnotes and works cited, then I gather it IS well researched and the information is "good".
But no references, 6th grader writing skills, cut off words and references to other wiki entries, and I know it's rubbish.
For instance, I was looking at entry on the Decurion - which last time I bothered to check on Wiki - was listed as the leader of a Contubernium, which first of all doesn't make any sense as I don't recall any mention of that rank in reference to the contub. on here...Secondly, all of my book references and such say different.. Having to do with Cavalry. So right away I know it's not correct...BUT, I haven't had the time nor really the desire to bother correcting it (or registering for that matter)...So I guess that's one option when it comes to Wiki...To ignore the information and stick to what you know and have researched before.
I'd suggest listing alternative theories (even if you don't subscribe to them), and even some of the obsolete information, as a way to "teach" or show readers what we knew before and what we know now in reference to the newest archaeological record and academic research.
I think that's all you can try to do and hope some schmuck doesn't come around and mess up the information all together because it doesn't confrom to their particular fantasy of how it ought to be...Or whatever excuse they have
...maybe one of these days I'll register and correct bits and pieces here and there.
Well, probably better to get something into Wikipedia rather than nothing at all.
And maybe it'd also get a little more public awareness about a resource such as this site? I can't see any harm in it, even if it isn't a "perfect" solution, eh?