|
Post by DavidRitchieWilson on Mar 25, 2007 2:13:24 GMT -8
I've spent some of my weekend adding information to the drysuit and wetsuit articles in the online encyclopedia Wikipedia at en.wikipedia.org/No sooner had I finished than another anonymous user began tabulating what I'd inputted to improve the presentation. It occurred to me that there is a vast amount - in some cases a lifetime - of knowledge and experience among the members of our forum and that such accumulated wisdom should be committed to the written medium for everybody's benefit. Has anybody else contributed, or considered contributing, to online encyclopedias such as Wikipedia, which already contain a lot of information about the history of diving which needs checking and adding to?
|
|
|
Post by Nemo on Mar 30, 2007 12:49:28 GMT -8
I've seen WIKIPEDIA but never really looked into it, so I was wondering.....
Is there any quality control over the accuracy of information posted there? How does that work?
And you mentioned someone else began "tabulating" your input. Does that mean someone arbitrarily edited your post?
|
|
|
Post by DavidRitchieWilson on Mar 30, 2007 20:57:03 GMT -8
Yes, the whole concept sounds arbitrary and people are free to make outrageous claims and distort facts. In practice, though, there is "peer review" and the likelihood is that anything untoward will be edited out by another contributor. There appears to be quality control in the form of comments about lack of reference sources in some articles and copyright breaches are supposed to be stamped on. My own contributions to the dry suit and wetsuit articles seem to have stood the test.
Why I brought this up is that some of the vintage diving articles in Wikipedia contain fascinating biographical information not readily available elsewhere. For example the article about Oscar Gugen, one of the founders of the British Sub Aqua Club is a most interesting one. There are biographical articles still be written, e.g. one on Bill Barada, and I was wondering whether any of the stalwarts on our forum could share their knowledge of such characters, or indeed of vintage gear, on Wikipedia for our and the general public's benefit. I suspect some diving lore has never been committed to print and should be placed in the public domain before it's lost for ever.
|
|
|
Post by Nemo on Mar 30, 2007 23:46:10 GMT -8
Thanks for the info. My knowledge of Wikipedia is limited and I asked because I've seen information there that didn't ring true. Now I understand why.
Moving on to what you suggested: I'd agree a section preserving accurate information on vintage scuba would be valuable, and the people in this group seem qualified to make it happen.
|
|
|
Post by DavidRitchieWilson on Mar 31, 2007 1:47:54 GMT -8
Glad you think so, Nemo. Some might argue that there are more traditional, academic ways of recording the accumulated knowledge and wisdom of vintage divers, e.g. articles in historical diving journals. This is true, but articles in such media aren't always accessible via the Web and they often end up only be read by a few subscribing enthusiasts. Meanwhile, as you say, open sources such as Wikipedia do inform the general public but risk dispensing inaccurate information if the real experts don't check the content of the articles regularly. I suggest that everybody on this forum has a look at the vintage diving related articles in Wikipedia and corrects the errors and completes the omissions as I have tried to do in the wet and dry suit articles.
|
|
|
Post by SeaRat on Mar 31, 2007 11:30:15 GMT -8
I just modified the Wikipedia entry on wet suits slightly, to discuss the difference between warm-water and cold water suits. Thanks for the prodding.
John
|
|
|
Post by Nemo on Mar 31, 2007 16:39:16 GMT -8
Just wondering....what's to stop some clown from deliberately spoiling things for others by posting bogus info? (I've no intentions in that direction, but there are pranksters online.)
|
|
|
Post by SeaRat on Mar 31, 2007 18:14:52 GMT -8
The way I understand it, there are people who watch the editings, and others who do the editing can remove it.
John
|
|
|
Post by duckbill on Apr 1, 2007 0:46:34 GMT -8
Nemo has a good question. Do the "watchers" have enough vintage diving knowledge to spot inaccuracies? So, who makes the final decisions? Who decides when there are contradictory "facts" which one is right. The same questions would apply to any other subject as well. Interesting.
|
|
|
Post by SeaRat on Apr 1, 2007 12:32:12 GMT -8
I'm not quite sure how it works yet, but have begun making contributions. I added the word "campfire" to the James Kim page, then edited the "campfire" page to show the use of pitchwood for fire building in the Pacific Northwest. Someone deleted my first entry to the James Kim page, and I re-entered it slightly modified (less words), and it stayed.
On the wet suit page, it looks like everything I imputed (about warm-water vs cold water wet suits and closed-cell vs open-cell foam neoprene) stayed in the text. I just put this page on my "watch" list, so that if any changes that are made, I will be notified. That apparently is how this thing works, and various people "watch" different entries. If they disagree, they can take them off, but they need to put a justification in doing so on the discussion page and history page.
John
|
|