Jump to content
jcgoble3

Wikipedia edits

Recommended Posts

That would be because there are no reliable sources that state the ride is open. If you look at the talk page of the article, there's been a disscussion of the "issue" but there's not much we can do. I'll add the out of date tag later today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm the one who added the hidden comments into the WindSeeker article. For those of you unfamiliar with Wikipedia, please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:V and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS, as well as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OR in detail. Basically, in accordance with Wikipedia policy, we have to have a published source that is "reliable", meaning one with editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking, such as a newspaper, and that is also "independent", meaning that it is not affiliated with the subject and reports on the subject from an "arm's length". Sources that are not independent are only allowed in certain, limited circumstances, and original research (using your own knowledge) is never allowed.

Currently, no acceptable sources exist, and as the first policy I linked to explains at the very top, "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." This was once expressed on the policy page as "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth." This means that we cannot update the article to list the WindSeekers as operating, even though we know that they are, until we can verify that with a reliable, independent source. Probably sounds stupid to you, but that's the way Wikipedia works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How was BLSC's status changed?

The BLSC article has not undergone any of Wikipedia's quality control review processes, and as such is not fully compliant with all policies; in particular, it needs more sources. WindSeeker, on the other hand, is in better shape, having passed a review and been listed as a Good Article (as designated by the green circle with the plus sign in the upper right corner of the article), and so it is held to a higher standard than the BLSC article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok i get the need for sources so people can verify info put on there, but if even you who wrote it know for a fact they are working isnt that enough? I just think its a problem for people who goto the page to see what KI etc is all about and are now mislead into thinking its not open?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok i get the need for sources so people can verify info put on there, but if even you who wrote it know for a fact they are working isnt that enough?

See this core content policy. In short, using your own knowledge constitutes "original research", which is not allowed. Wikipedia only works with facts from reliable published sources. That's the key: the information must be from a published source. If the source is not published, then it is unverifiable and cannot be used.

I just think its a problem for people who goto the page to see what KI etc is all about and are now mislead into thinking its not open?

Which is why the article now displays a banner at the top warning readers that it contains inaccurate outdated information. While we can't change the information until we get an acceptable source, we can at least slap a maintenance tag on the article warning readers. And really, everything on Wikipedia should be taken with a grain of salt anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All facts in any encyclopedia should be come from verifiable secondary sources. For most amusement parks, however, the current operating status of individual attractions generally isn't published.

Perhaps remove the status completely, if the article is to contain only citable information? Then add it back later when there's a citable article about the Knott's WindSeeker reopening. Or maybe WP:IAR applies here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps remove the status completely, if the article is to contain only citable information? Then add it back later when there's a citable article about the Knott's WindSeeker reopening. Or maybe WP:IAR applies here.

Removing it completely is a possibility. I'll bring it up on the talk page. As for "ignore all rules", that is not carte blanche, requires a very strong justification to get away with it, and is virtually unjustifiable when dealing with the core content policies, so probably isn't appropriate here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Now the article's correct, if not necessarily complete.

"Ignore all rules" is intended to apply to situations where policies are being used to support an undesirable result, such as a factually incorrect article. In this case, simply deleting the factually incorrect information is almost certainly better than adding original research. I'm aware that the policy doesn't mean to literally ignore all of the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if someone were to film a video, showing a newspaper dated today on the camera, and show WindSeeker running, with passengers, in the background? If cited, would this be suitable?

Or if, perhaps, we could somehow get Don to confirm via the park's official Twitter that the ride is up and running?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if someone were to film a video, showing a newspaper dated today on the camera, and show WindSeeker running, with passengers, in the background? If cited, would this be suitable?

Or if, perhaps, we could somehow get Don to confirm via the park's official Twitter that the ride is up and running?

The video would not be considered reliable because anybody can put anything on YouTube, and video editing technology is so sophisticated these days that those videos might be highly modified and few people could tell that it was fake. There is a bot that automatically undoes any addition of YouTube links by new or unregistered users for that reason. The park's Twitter could theoretically be used (and there has already been a tweet from Don about it a few weeks ago when it first opened), but that is a primary source, not a secondary source, and the latter is preferred in encyclopedias such as Wikipedia. As such, it would be a last resort option.

Right now, my guess is that unlike the others, the one at Knott's will generate a newspaper article or two when it reopens, because it was the only one forced to shut down by state inspectors. When that occurs, it is likely, if the newspaper does its homework, that the article will mention that the others have already reopened, and we can then use that as a source. Only if we are unable to get that would it then be appropriate to consider using primary sources like Twitter.

I never realized people actually put out this much effort on dumb Wikipedia pages.

It's a hobby, and every hobby has someone who thinks it's dumb. I'm sure you're not the only one that thinks that way about Wikipedia. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are to be commended for the care and professionalism you exert for Wikipedia. If only every other contributor took the rules so seriously.

Thank you. :)

No, no. I'm not saying your hobby is dumb. I'm saying the effort put forth for a meaningless page like BLSC's was dumb. :)

Same thing applies. You think that much effort is dumb (and that's your right to think that), while I see it as amusement, which is the point of a hobby. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a miracle!

No doubt! What was funny was when it first happened, someone called my wife, and they said, "Oh my, we are so sorry to hear about RD. What happened?"

Wife: "He's sitting right here, want to talk to him?"

Then we all had a laugh about it.

And swore to never trust Wikipedia again. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I decided to check Screamscape for whatever crazy rumors are out there for Project 2014/Banshee. Noticed that it said that WindSeeker is open. Don't know if it can be used (it IS Screamscape...), but I guess it might be worth a shot.

Same is said for all other parks besides Cedar Point and Knotts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I decided to check Screamscape for whatever crazy rumors are out there for Project 2014/Banshee. Noticed that it said that WindSeeker is open. Don't know if it can be used (it IS Screamscape...), but I guess it might be worth a shot.

Same is said for all other parks besides Cedar Point and Knotts.

Screamscape is sometimes used as a source on Wikipedia, but it is treated with extreme caution, and is generally only used as a last resort when no other source can be found. I'll look into it if the eventual Knott's news article doesn't mention the others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×