Books on Wíkipedia: Power Without Glory: Racing the BigTwin Cooper

Years ago I wrote and published (2015) a book which happened to have the same title as an Australian novel, Power Without Glory and I added a brief mention to that book's entry on Wikipedia. There was a bit of a furore from the literati and I created a brief standalone entry on Wikipedia for the record. Recently that entry has been challenged and it is proposed to remove it, even though the book meets a number of Wikipedia's own criteria such as awards and reviews. One of the supporters of removal argues that the book is ''not yet part of the motor racing canon as are several by Doug Nye, none of which AFAIK is the subject of an article'. I don't know what AFAIK is. Could Nostalgia forumers load Wikipedia with more information on Doug's books under Doug Nye at https://en.wikipedia.../wiki/Doug_Nye? A few lines on each would surely be terrific and would set an example others could follow.

AFAIK = As far as I know. Unless what Wikipedia says matters to you, they are IMHO best avoided like the plague.

RGDS RLT

Wikipedia is a thing of the past, anyway. It will be obliterated completely by AI* systems in very short time. Every minute spent on it is effectively unpaid work for the multi-million-dollar businesses who will market those AI systems. I wouldn't bother.

* AI = Artificial Intelligence

It's fashionable to knock  Wikipedia but I find it bloody useful. But now I am a dinosaur apparently . No change there then. 

It's fashionable to knock Wikipedia but I find it bloody useful. But now I am a dinosaur apparently . No change there then.

Perhaps I could assist in some way re whackypaedia since my name is apparently used in some way regarding what to the wider world is a matter of no importance?  Detailing the totally unimportant is surely what we here are all about?   Because it's of interest to us...  

DCN

PS - And while the on-line encyclopaedia used to be jam-packed with the most appalling rubbish I agree with John (above) and find it very much improved and incredibly useful today as a handy, easily searched first port of call for most topics.   Importantly it suits my very restricted level of IT competence.  But as Michael warns, it is plainly pervertable - and that (like so much within this frightening current and future cyber-world) concerns me deeply...  Hard copy paper reference has to survive as insurance against the day when the ill intentioned or the accidental surely threatens to erase every electron stored.

Edited by Doug Nye, 06 October 2023 - 06:54.

My impression of the Wiki editors concerned with motor racing is that that unless the subject fits a narrow range of criteria in which they are interested or have knowledge of they will just remove or ignore stuff.

For example, the Wikipedia page for the successful pre-WW2 voiturette driver Arthur Dobson - despite having originally been lifted from Golden Era - was deleted on the grounds of "no assertion of notability". Yet there is a page for his less successful brother Austin - admittedly it's only two lines but it mentions that Arthur 'was also a racing driver' (no sign of the third Dobson brother Bill!). Austin seems to only be there because he drove in the 1936 Hungarian GP, so presumably Wikipedia only concerns itself with International Formula races in the 1930s. See, for another example, the entry for Raymond Mays, which includes several 'citation wanted' notes for things which are frankly common knowledge. Or the one for Peter Berthon - which doesn't exist either!

Of course, it's "bloody useful"! And the AI answering machine that will replace it will be even more bloody useful. Only ten or twenty years ago, everybody would've been appalled at the idea of having your own home bugged, but today people even pay for it themselves because Siri and Alexa are so bloody useful...

Quick access to knowledge on almost any subject - what's not to like? Run by a non-profit organisation too.

Are there inaccuracies, is it incomplete, are some entries disproportionate to others? Of course. Same is true of a library full of books.

Quick access to knowledge on almost any subject - what's not to like? Run by a non-profit organisation too.

Are there inaccuracies, is it incomplete, are some entries disproportionate to others? Of course. Same is true of a library full of books.

The problem with Wikipedia is that it can be "corrected" by users who are incorrect. Then when an entry is restored to accuracy, the change does not stick if it is then "corrected" by someone who possibly is using the incorrect information previously in that space "because it was on Wikipedia" after all. Ex. an inaccurate and misleading entry exists and persists regarding the origination of a business with which I am intimately familiar. I changed the entry to reflect Reality. It was changed back. This happened three times and I gave up. I know my entry is accurate because I was there from the beginning, I ran this business for a time, and I know all the people involved. It's clear the person or persons doing the "correcting" have no idea how it all came about, and I have no idea where they got the idea(s) they have.

I can't be the only Wikipedia user with an experience similar to this. Other info I have found on Wikipedia has turned out to be false and misleading as well. As far as my own judgement, I don't trust anything found there. Some info may point me in the right direction so it can be a useful starting point. Some info they present is 100% accurate, but users can't really know what they're getting. As a single source, Wikipedia is not reliable.

The problem with Wikipedia is that it can be "corrected" by users who are incorrect. Then when an entry is restored to accuracy, the change does not stick if it is then "corrected" by someone who possibly is using the incorrect information previously in that space "because it was on Wikipedia" after all. Ex. an inaccurate and misleading entry exists and persists regarding the origination of a business with which I am intimately familiar. I changed the entry to reflect Reality. It was changed back. This happened three times and I gave up. I know my entry is accurate because I was there from the beginning, I ran this business for a time, and I know all the people involved. It's clear the person or persons doing the "correcting" have no idea how it all came about, and I have no idea where they got the idea(s) they have.

 

I can't be the only Wikipedia user with an experience similar to this. Other info I have found on Wikipedia has turned out to be false and misleading as well. As far as my own judgement, I don't trust anything found there. Some info may point me in the right direction so it can be a useful starting point. Some info they present is 100% accurate, but users can't really know what they're getting. As a single source, Wikipedia is not reliable.

In short Wikipedia is unreliable drivel. Who in the real world is interested in their arcane criteria?

Why would anyone work for them for nothing?

RGDS RLT

 

PS - And while the on-line encyclopaedia used to be jam-packed with the most appalling rubbish I agree with John (above) and find it very much improved and incredibly useful today as a handy, easily searched first port of call for most topics.   Importantly it suits my very restricted level of IT competence.  But as Michael warns, it is plainly pervertable - and that (like so much within this frightening current and future cyber-world) concerns me deeply...  Hard copy paper reference has to survive as insurance against the day when the ill intentioned or the accidental surely threatens to erase every electron stored.

My experience is the opposite - it's worse than it's ever been and declining. I suppose the different experiences are due as much to different interests and subjects researched as anything else.

Hard copy paper reference - yes, an absolute essential. It won't be long before a notable level of resistance to this principle will be felt. Just a prediction/WAG.

In short Wikipedia is unreliable drivel. Who in the real world is interested in their arcane criteria?

Why would anyone work for them for nothing?

 

RGDS RLT

Because getting to shape a narrative is reward enough - for certain people.

The problem with Wikipedia is that it can be "corrected" by users who are incorrect. Then when an entry is restored to accuracy, the change does not stick if it is then "corrected" by someone who possibly is using the incorrect information previously in that space "because it was on Wikipedia" after all.

 

I can't be the only Wikipedia user with an experience similar to this. Other info I have found on Wikipedia has turned out to be false and misleading as well. As far as my own judgement, I don't trust anything found there. Some info may point me in the right direction so it can be a useful starting point. Some info they present is 100% accurate, but users can't really know what they're getting. As a single source, Wikipedia is not reliable.

It depends on the topic.  I tend to focus on some fairly mundane and non-controversial stuff.  And there are ways to escalate an editing war that will protect articles to be edited only by "advanced" users.  E.g. Crystal Palace morons who think the 1860s football club is the same as the current club.

On the highlighted bit, check the source behind the article.  Everything should be sourced.  If they are not it might simply be inertia.  After all, how many are going to stumble on Austin Dobson and then take the time to correct things or add in references?  The article is flagged as a stub which means it's there in case someone can add something to it...

As to why one would do it?  For fun, for practice, and it's weirdly got me an article in a proper actual published printed magazine...

Because getting to shape a narrative is reward enough - for certain people.

I fully understand this but then to find ignorant people monkeying around with your output is the last straw.

RGDS RLT 

No serious researcher would rely on a citation from Wikipedia, if for no other reason that it may have changed in the meanwhile, or indeed have been deleted.

Health warning: Wikipedia is a woke organisation, from California.

 

RGDS RLT

Who on Earth has ever suggested it as a primary source for research? It's presented as nothing of the kind. It gives quick and easy access to a vast range of subjects, and (as I've said before) you can't necessarily trust books either. I once had one which told me Henry Ford invented the motor car, while I'm not sure Geoffrey of Monmouth's writings were entirely accurate.

Who on Earth has ever suggested it as a primary source for research? It's presented as nothing of the kind. It gives quick and easy access to a vast range of subjects, and (as I've said before) you can't necessarily trust books either. I once had one which told me Henry Ford invented the motor car, while I'm not sure Geoffrey of Monmouth's writings were entirely accurate.

I've seen it cited countless times but heed this advice: "Wikipedia is a useful source of background information that students often use in the early stages of research. However, it’s often not considered a reliable source to cite in your academic writing." There are limitations to crowd-sourcing which amount to a fundamental weakness.
You are right — there is plenty of dreck in books too! We shouldn't rely on either source. 

RGDS RLT  

Edited by Rupertlt1, 06 October 2023 - 13:43.

Wikipedia is, as others have described, a useful tool. It is not The Bible on any topic, but does at least give one a starting point on a particular topic. AI and Wiki will never achieve the kind of detail that is possible by proper research involving first-hand recollection or primary-source information. Why? Because there will always be single-point sources of information that will never be accessible to AI or internet-based data gathering. Well that is until AI is able to access our minds.

Having said that, I have on occasion attempted to correct inaccuracies on Wiki (and citing sources to back it up), only to find that the changes have been over-written with the original plagiarised inaccuracies.

So it's fine so long as you know its limitations. The same is true of AI-based data.

In short Wikipedia is unreliable drivel. Who in the real world is interested in their arcane criteria?

Why would anyone work for them for nothing?

 

RGDS RLT

This just isn't true.

If you ever look at entries outside the rather arcane world of motor sport history, Wikipedia is, as many have already commented, a very useful starting-off point. In many spheres - literature, music etc. - it is often comprehensive and detailed. It contains errors, anomalies and omissions, but then so did Ronnie Mutch's Niki Lauda and the Grand Prix Gladiators. I wouldn't use either as a sole source for serious research, but I have more confidence in Wikipedia than in some published books! 

Not only are the ondinary users who write entries unreliable but the people who monitor entries can be a bit strange.

I included a photograph which must have been taken in 1921 but was removed as I did not have permission of either the photographer or the subject. The subject died in 1949 and the photographer, although unknown, can reasonably be assumed to have died before 2012, when we added the entry so their consent was impossible to have.

In the normal way, when I see an error, I've been through the loop of having my correction de-corrected

 

I included a photograph which must have been taken in 1921 but was removed as I did not have permission of either the photographer or the subject. The subject died in 1949 and the photographer, although unknown, can reasonably be assumed to have died before 2012, when we added the entry so their consent was impossible to have.

 

Wikipedia is public domain so you need proof that your media are not someone's copyright.  You can blame Walt Disney for your problems though.  The US keeps shifting copyright time limits to ensure Snow White & The Seven Dwarfs remains in the Mouse's grip.  Wikipedia is hosted in the US so stuck with US copyright. 

So, if the photographer can be shown to have died over 75 years ago, then the pic is public domain.  Problem is either proving that as a fact or as an inevitability - and someone taking a pic in 1921 could have lived (just about) to this century...

By most criteria I am guilty of being woke* - and I lose not a wink's sleep about being so.  

*in its original sense . Like 'fascist ' , it is now often just a lazy label to insult those whose views don't mirror the speaker's   .  

I stand by my comment that I find Wikiwotsit an "easily searched first port of call" - no more than that.  However - since I spend a lot of time enmeshed in military and especially naval history I do find it now pretty good on both counts.  Perhaps there are fewer people willing to risk - as a Falklands veteran friend of mine often remarks "Buggering about with us...".

DCN.  

I fail to see what all the fuss is about….

Everyone understands the pitfalls of relying too heavily on Wikipedia.

But, as Doug says, it is an easily-searched first port of call…….simple as that…..

Perhaps I could assist in some way re whackypaedia since my name is apparently used in some way regarding what to the wider world is a matter of no importance?  Detailing the totally unimportant is surely what we here are all about?   Because it's of interest to us...  

 

DCN

 

PS - And while the on-line encyclopaedia used to be jam-packed with the most appalling rubbish I agree with John (above) and find it very much improved and incredibly useful today as a handy, easily searched first port of call for most topics.   Importantly it suits my very restricted level of IT competence.  But as Michael warns, it is plainly pervertable - and that (like so much within this frightening current and future cyber-world) concerns me deeply...  Hard copy paper reference has to survive as insurance against the day when the ill intentioned or the accidental surely threatens to erase every electron stored.

Too late Doug,, the internet has become a web of lies. And yes I look at Wiki regularly though often do not agree with what is said.

Having said that, I have on occasion attempted to correct inaccuracies on Wiki (and citing sources to back it up), only to find that the changes have been over-written with the original plagiarised inaccuracies.

A good observation. AI and Wikipedia share similar problems. The first is the 'feedback loop' alluded to above. Incorrect information is included in Wikipedia articles which is quoted elsewhere. The original error is corrected in Wikipedia but it is too late. The incorrect information can be used as a 'primary source' which makes it permissible to 'update' Wikipedia.

With AI, tripe generated by one system can innocently be ingested by another to create second generation nonsense. We are already at the stage where AI models need to be trained using non-internet material. Material which predates the worldwide web or which can be proven to be derived from a reliable human primary source is essential for AI to work. That means printed material, original video works, music, voice etc. Whether copyright owners wish to allow their work to be used in training AI systems is entirely their own choice, but I wouldn't rely on the morals of AI developers.

in the real world, radiocarbon dating is problematic with 20th century materials. Unscrupulous ship salvagers steal pre-WWII wrecks for the iron content, which is unpolluted by nuclear weapons testing, for use in scientific and medical instrumentation. Data unpolluted by AI 'hallucinations' has increasing value.

I'm also in the odd situation where some of my writing in other fields has been cited as a source at Wikipedia. I find this more bemusing than anything.

I've made many, many minor edits to Wikipedia, primarily American motor sports. I did so when it became painfully obvious that it was the beginning, and ending, of research for many even within the U.S. media. So, correcting glaring errors - no matter how minor they seemed - and adding a brief biographical passage, seemed important. Do I resent it? Yes, but not so much as seeing the propogation of myth.

Charlieman mentioned an error occurring originally at Wikipedia being corrected, yet having already propogated. Yes, this has happened with a ridiculous tale about Dario Resta settling in Bakersfield, California and building a race track c. 1916 "that exists to this day as Buttonwillow Raceway." 1. Resta never lived in Bakersfield, let alone built a track near the town of Buttonwillow and 2. Buttonwillow Raceway wasn't constructed until the mid-1990s. This wasn't originally a Wikipedia error, but instead was cited from an article at the well-thought of 8W site. Unfortunately, this was picked up from Wikipedia by blog after blog and website after website. The SCCA website even contained the entire tale! Doing a Google search, I contacted someone at each result. When finding an actual human, this went well and they quickly removed it. Problem is, many of these are long abandoned blogs or websites, laying there derelict, with no one to make the change. The misinformation just laying there, awaiting the next "discovery" to be reinserted back into the record.

Edited by Jim Thurman, 08 October 2023 - 01:07.

I've seen it cited countless times but heed this advice: "Wikipedia is a useful source of background information that students often use in the early stages of research. However, it’s often not considered a reliable source to cite in your academic writing." There are limitations to crowd-sourcing which amount to a fundamental weakness.
You are right — there is plenty of dreck in books too! We shouldn't rely on either source. 

RGDS RLT  

This is correct. I am obliged to tell students again and again that it is not a substitute for proper, peer-reviewed sources, and that they need to be wary of anything they read in it.

That said, John is also correct in saying that it's bloody useful. It has obvious and important limitations that have been discussed here. But if I need to remind myself of the year of Charlemagne's birth, or what the capital of Uzbekistan is, I'm not going to walk to the library to consult Encyclopaedia Britannica, am I?

Tashkent.

Mornington Crescent.

RGDS RLT

Sorry to stir up something of a hornet's nest but I think how Wikipedia conducts itself is of some importance to all of us who use it, hopefully with our eyes wide open..

In 2015 a note was added by me to the Wikipedia entry about the novel Power Without Glory by simply naming another (2015) book of the same main title. A Wikipedia editor moved that brief mention to a much longer page of its own and there it has sat doing no harm for 8 years. Now, another editor wants to remove that editor's entry. The ''Articles for Deletion'', as Wikipedia calls them, are open for discussion and this currently falls into two camps. One is that the book qualifies for an entry as 'notable' because it had "significant coverage in (at least two)  reliable sources that are independent of the subject" for which reviews in The Automobile and Octane alone qualify it. The other seems to be that this is a niche topic apparently not of interest to certain editors one of whom has posted ''You're lucky you're self-promotion lasted this long''.

Wikipedia is currently having an online discussion as to whether the reference to the book should be deleted and anybody who has a Wikipedia account can join in. From my own point of view as author and publisher I don't  really care that much. But on the other hand I think we all have an interest in the way Wikipedia conducts itself and others might like to join in the current discussion. I think this can be done by logging-in to Wikipedia and going to its entry Power Without Glory (2015) book where there is a link to 'the deletion discussion''.

Edited by tsrwright, 09 October 2023 - 02:38.

The article under discussion is here:

https://en.wikipedia...ory_(2015_book)

Trevor,

You are at the mercy of petty mean-minded gatekeepers. No doubt you devoted many long hours to this publication for little reward. But somehow you have become a shameless self publicist!  

I can't find the source of this quote:  ''You're lucky you're self-promotion lasted this long'' — grammatically incorrect. How many books has he written?

RGDS RLT

Does it really matter whether the book has a Wikipedia entry? There seems to be an awful lot of unnecessary energy being expended here and in that deletion discussion.

The first time that most of us heard of ChatGPT was 11 months ago. It had been around for years -- in development form, as it is now -- but it seemed the right time for the developers to show it off to the world. Ai is difficult technology.

Unsurprisingly, other big IT companies had also been developing their own AI systems in private. They were experimental works too. In response to the release of ChatGPT, IT firms have offered their own experimental works. These were judged insufficiently developed for public release before ChatGPT opened the box, but for commercial reasons it was necessary for the owners to share them. To show that they hadn't been left behind.

Thus we have OpenAI, the friendly-named ambitious organisation which owns ChatGPT, pushing up its value by launching first.

Sorry, I made a mistake. OpenAI is not a friendly-named ambitious organisation. There are two OpenAI companies, one of which is about making money. It turns out that ChatGPT is intended to make dosh one day.

A few year ago when you shopped on Amazon, the site had a predictive algorithm: you liked this so you'll like that. On the basis of my purchase of a few computer books, Amazon suggested that I should buy Tolkien, Harry Potter and Star Wars products. Statistically they were the nearest thing. That's how AI models work: connecting near things.

AI will deliver some useful material in the next few years -- analysing science and medicine data which is too boring for humans. I wish that the people who spend money on AI apply it more wisely.

Does it really matter whether the book has a Wikipedia entry? There seems to be an awful lot of unnecessary energy being expended here and in that deletion discussion.

I do think it matters to those of us who use Wikipedia regularly that it has appropriate processes regarding qualification for entry. It would seem that some editors want to delete qualifying material because it is what one described as a 'niche subject'. 

Edited by tsrwright, 11 October 2023 - 03:42.

The article under discussion is here:

 

https://en.wikipedia...ory_(2015_book)

 

 

I can't find the source of this quote:  ''You're lucky you're self-promotion lasted this long'' — grammatically incorrect. How many books has he written?

 

 

If you go to the above link and click on the link 'delete discussion'' it will take you to it but it is pretty weary stuff

I do think it matters to those of us who use Wikipedia regularly that it has appropriate processes regarding qualification for entry. It would seem that some editors want to delete qualifying material because it is what one described as a 'niche subject'. 

So you're saying that it's a point of principle that you're fighting for? It hardly seems worth the effort. I reiterate, given that it is a niche subject (and I say this as an enthusiast for this niche subject and an owner of the book in question), does it really matter if the entry is deleted? I tend to agree with this comment from ensign14 earlier in the thread:

I would struggle to think of any motor racing book which is notable enough for a wiki entry...Autocourse and Automobile Year would as long-running series. If any ever wins the William Hill award, perhaps

Anyway, I seem to be expending unnecessary energy on this now so I'll leave you in peace.

 Hard copy paper reference has to survive as insurance against the day when the ill intentioned or the accidental surely threatens to erase every electron stored.

Absolutely concur, there's always room for another Volume to bring Fourth erudition. 

I think I got away with it, grabs flak jacket and exits stage right..... 

Official determination by Wikipedia administrators after much discussion:

The result was keep‎. While an argument could be made for a No consensus closure, those arguing to Keep this article have brought forth reviews that satisfy our notability standards for books. If there is a concern about COI [conflict of interest)] editing, a discussion on that issue can occur on the article talk page or at COIN. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC).

In other words I wasn't supposed to edit something I had a personal interest in. There were long arguments between the ''exclusionists'' and the "ïnclusionists" and I was quite impressed by the maturity of the senior Wikipedia people. Not so one of our number who complained about my ''behaviour" here and wrote that I should ''respect the processes of the editing community instead of talking s..t on the Autosport forums". 

Anyway, the conclusion is that a book that gets two or more reviews from appropriate magazines is likely entitled to have an entry on Wikipedia which could keep a lot of people busy if they care to make use of the opportunity. Anyone can register to join Wikipedia and write stuff.

Edited by tsrwright, 31 October 2023 - 02:59.