uk_martin Posted October 15, 2015 Report Share Posted October 15, 2015 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_in_sports It's OK for Formula 1, it's OK for Major League Baseball, football, rowing international athletics and even Polish Handball... ...but bah humbug. Speedway doesn't need a listing on Wikipedia, does it? Aren't you glad that the FIM / BSI etc are above this kind of thing, and don't need to resort to cheap gimmickry to attract a younger web-savvy audience? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldace Posted October 15, 2015 Report Share Posted October 15, 2015 (edited) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_in_sports It's OK for Formula 1, it's OK for Major League Baseball, football, rowing international athletics and even Polish Handball... ...but bah humbug. Speedway doesn't need a listing on Wikipedia, does it? Aren't you glad that the FIM / BSI etc are above this kind of thing, and don't need to resort to cheap gimmickry to attract a younger web-savvy audience? What does wikipedia have to do with the FIM/BSI. It is simply updated by joe public. Get yourself made a wikipedia contributor and do it yourself. It isn't any sort of official site Edited October 15, 2015 by Oldace 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozrik Posted October 15, 2015 Report Share Posted October 15, 2015 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_in_sports It's OK for Formula 1, it's OK for Major League Baseball, football, rowing international athletics and even Polish Handball... ...but bah humbug. Speedway doesn't need a listing on Wikipedia, does it? Aren't you glad that the FIM / BSI etc are above this kind of thing, and don't need to resort to cheap gimmickry to attract a younger web-savvy audience? Some really odd sports listed there, (cyclo-cross?) why not speedway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldace Posted October 15, 2015 Report Share Posted October 15, 2015 Some really odd sports listed there, (cyclo-cross?) why not speedway. Because someone with an interest in cyclo cross has listed it rather than go on a forum to moan it is not there 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozrik Posted October 15, 2015 Report Share Posted October 15, 2015 Because someone with an interest in cyclo cross has listed it rather than go on a forum to moan it is not there I am not a registered contributor to Wikipedia or i would list it myself. Even though some content is a bit dubious, wikipedia is still a great resource, a library in your living room. Go on and list it ace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted October 15, 2015 Report Share Posted October 15, 2015 I am not a registered contributor to Wikipedia or i would list it myself. Even though some content is a bit dubious, wikipedia is still a great resource, a library in your living room. Go on and list it ace. Anyone can edit wikipedia - thats the whole point. I've updated a few things on there in the past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 15, 2015 Report Share Posted October 15, 2015 Some really odd sports listed there, (cyclo-cross?) why not speedway. Look under Motor Cycling on the Wikipedia site. Four Speedway GPs are there! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozrik Posted October 15, 2015 Report Share Posted October 15, 2015 Anyone can edit wikipedia - thats the whole point. I've updated a few things on there in the past. I wasn't aware of that, thought you had to register, verify source, etc. I might give it a try. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 15, 2015 Report Share Posted October 15, 2015 Anyone can edit wikipedia - thats the whole point. I've updated a few things on there in the past. I wasn't aware of that, thought you had to register, verify source, etc. I might give it a try. Thanks. Here's the Wikipedia guidelines. https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grachan Posted October 16, 2015 Report Share Posted October 16, 2015 Do you people complaining understand what Wikipedia is? You can just add stuff yourself. In fact speedway is there now so presumably someone has. You don't need to register. You can just press edit. I've done some myself. The list of World Championship top 3s? I did that. Maybe I should have just come here and complained that nobody else had done it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted October 16, 2015 Report Share Posted October 16, 2015 I wasn't aware of that, thought you had to register, verify source, etc. I might give it a try. Thanks. It's a bit of a PITA, but once you have grasped how it works it shouldn't take too long. Get the formatting right for the first GP and the rest should follow a lot easier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E I Addio Posted October 16, 2015 Report Share Posted October 16, 2015 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_in_sports It's OK for Formula 1, it's OK for Major League Baseball, football, rowing international athletics and even Polish Handball... ...but bah humbug. Speedway doesn't need a listing on Wikipedia, does it? Aren't you glad that the FIM / BSI etc are above this kind of thing, and don't need to resort to cheap gimmickry to attract a younger web-savvy audience? Speedway is on the link you posted. Item 35.1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldace Posted October 16, 2015 Report Share Posted October 16, 2015 Speedway is on the link you posted. Item 35.1 Presumably someone from on here saw this thread and made the amendment. We don't want UK Martin put to any trouble do we, far easier to just complain no one has done something that you could easily do yourself 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OveFundinFan Posted October 16, 2015 Report Share Posted October 16, 2015 That beats it all..... someone moaning about those who are moaning about Wikipedia !!!!! perhaps those moaning about Wikipedia just didn't know they could edit wikipedia, ........and instead of someone moaning about those moaning about Wikipedia, they could have just educated them in a kind way simply by saying that anyone can edit Wikipedia. Now I am going to stop moaning too. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woz01 Posted October 16, 2015 Report Share Posted October 16, 2015 Trying to get a dig in then look absolutely ridiculous in the process.... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uk_martin Posted October 16, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 16, 2015 Anyone can edit wikipedia - thats the whole point. I've updated a few things on there in the past. INCLUDING the press officers of BSI / FIM / One Sport, as well, you'd have thought...possibly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldace Posted October 16, 2015 Report Share Posted October 16, 2015 INCLUDING the press officers of BSI / FIM / One Sport, as well, you'd have thought...possibly? Absolutely not. Wikipedia is often littered with errors, by the nature of how it is produced. Under no circumstances should a governing body be seen to have an input. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grachan Posted October 16, 2015 Report Share Posted October 16, 2015 Absolutely not. Wikipedia is often littered with errors, by the nature of how it is produced. Under no circumstances should a governing body be seen to have an input. Musician Mike Scott of The Waterboys did re-write his own Wikiedia page once because it was inaccurate. It was then promptly reverted to the old, inaccurate version and he received a notification from them saying that he hadn't cited references. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humphrey Appleby Posted October 16, 2015 Report Share Posted October 16, 2015 ]Under no circumstances should a governing body be seen to have an input. Wikipedia effectively offers free advertising, so the likes of the FIM and BSI could and should be using it to raise awareness of their competitions. The amount of stuff on speedway on Wikipedia is very poor, and whilst I have been tempted to write/re-write text myself, I simply don't have the interest in the sport that once did. I see some other people have ported some of my pre-Wikipedia stuff though, even though it's now largely out of date. I did write a number of articles related to my profession in the past, despite official hostility towards Wikipedia so I had to do it under a pseudonym. Eventually they did become a widely used reference and proved to be far more useful than anything that our so-called PR department managed. It was then promptly reverted to the old, inaccurate version and he received a notification from them saying that he hadn't cited references. Yes, I've experienced that, and even worse had a page marked for deletion on the grounds of being 'unverified information'. Eventually after putting the page back a couple of times, the silly moderator or whoever gave up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldace Posted October 16, 2015 Report Share Posted October 16, 2015 Wikipedia effectively offers free advertising, so the likes of the FIM and BSI could and should be using it to raise awareness of their competitions. The amount of stuff on speedway on Wikipedia is very poor, and whilst I have been tempted to write/re-write text myself, I simply don't have the interest in the sport that once did. I see some other people have ported some of my pre-Wikipedia stuff though, even though it's now largely out of date. I did write a number of articles related to my profession in the past, despite official hostility towards Wikipedia so I had to do it under a pseudonym. Eventually they did become a widely used reference and proved to be far more useful than anything that our so-called PR department managed. Yes, I've experienced that, and even worse had a page marked for deletion on the grounds of being 'unverified information'. Eventually after putting the page back a couple of times, the silly moderator or whoever gave up. Wilipedia can be a source of reference but never to be taken as gospel without further research. It is in effect all amateur and not something a govering body should be assiciating itself with. The kind of information that such organisations could contribute could be part of their own specialist website Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.