Welcome to the Historical Fiction Online forums: a friendly place to discuss, review and discover historical fiction.
If this is your first visit, please be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You will have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing posts, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Wikipedia

A place to debate issues or to rant about what's on your mind. In addition to discussions about historical fiction, books, the publishing industry, and history, discussions about current political, social, and religious issues and other topics are allowed, so those who are easily offended by certain topics may want to avoid such threads. Members are expected to keep the discussions friendly and polite and to avoid personal attacks on other members. The moderators reserve the right to shut down a thread without warning if they believe it necessary.
User avatar
Rowan
Bibliophile
Interest in HF: I love history, but it's boring in school. Historical fiction brings it alive for me.
Preferred HF: Iron-Age Britain, Roman Britain, Medieval Britain
Location: New Orleans
Contact:

Wikipedia

Postby Rowan » Wed October 3rd, 2012, 3:18 pm

I don't know what everyone's opinion is regarding Wikipedia, but I have to say that I was a bit surprised listening to a story about this professor tried to change information on a specific article and was thwarted numerous times. Apparently Wikipedia's policy is (paraphrasing) "not to document what happened in the world/history but to document what people claim has happened."

So if you figure out that accepted history is false, you cannot change it. You have to wait til others make the same discovery and accept it AND write a book about it or we remain with the status quo.

Is this the right approach to maintaining a site like Wikipedia?

If you are a regular contributor/editor to the site, what have your experiences been? Would knowing this policy change your views?

Am I just stupid and not "getting" the fact that this is how history and world events should be represented?

You can listen to the story on NPR's website.

User avatar
LoveHistory
Bibliomaniac
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Contact:

Postby LoveHistory » Wed October 3rd, 2012, 4:12 pm

In a way that is how history and world events have always been represented. It's difficult to find a history book, or a book about some aspect of history, that doesn't contain the author's slant on the events. History books in different countries will have different information about some aspects of World War II for example. Entire cultures have histories of trying to erase unpleasant or unpopular people and events from the records (Ancient Egypt for example).

It could be that Wikipedia figures there is enough documentation of what actually happened, and they want to get a sense of the things that don't make it into the textbooks of the world. I'm not hopeful that this is the case, but it is possible.

User avatar
Divia
Bibliomaniac
Location: Always Cloudy, Central New York

Postby Divia » Wed October 3rd, 2012, 7:12 pm

Personally I've never been a fan of wiki. I mean I use it for stupid stuff and the quick and dirty info like if I'm reading a hf book and I dont know the characters. We try to steer the students away from using it unless its a gateway source.

I will say this. I have gone on and changed a few articles in my day just to see how long it takes to change them back. Sometimes it was hours and in one case it was a day.

I can see how one historian wasn't allowed to change it because the evidence doesnt support his viewpoint. Wiki is for the majority view, not the minority one.
News, views, and reviews on books and graphic novels for young adult.
http://yabookmarks.blogspot.com/

User avatar
Rowan
Bibliophile
Interest in HF: I love history, but it's boring in school. Historical fiction brings it alive for me.
Preferred HF: Iron-Age Britain, Roman Britain, Medieval Britain
Location: New Orleans
Contact:

Postby Rowan » Wed October 3rd, 2012, 7:12 pm

In this case, the guy who wanted to make edits had the original court transcript of what happened at the trial and that wasn't good enough for the Gods of Wikipedia. :rolleyes:

User avatar
DianeL
Bibliophile
Location: Midatlantic east coast, United States
Contact:

Postby DianeL » Sat July 6th, 2013, 4:48 pm

I'm confused - the only way to be pious is to agree with you ... ???

We've never "met" - it looks like you just joined, and that's fine - but you've put up twelve posts in what appears to be quick succession, though not in the Introduce Yourself forum. In multiple posts already, you're mentioning being banned. There is no indication here whatsoever that you are being persecuted ... so the repeated discussion of your being banned comes off more as prelude to a trolling than an interested new member eager to participate in conversation.

Just sayin'.
Last edited by DianeL on Sat July 6th, 2013, 4:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"To be the queen, she agreed to be the widow!"

***

The pre-modern world was willing to attribute charisma to women well before it was willing to attribute sustained rationality to them.
---Medieval Kingship, Henry A. Myers

***

http://dianelmajor.blogspot.com/
I'm a Twit: @DianeLMajor

User avatar
Divia
Bibliomaniac
Location: Always Cloudy, Central New York

Postby Divia » Sat July 6th, 2013, 5:27 pm

"egmond codfried" wrote:This is of great interest of me as I made some great scientific historical discoveries and just mentioning them seems to turn many people into murderous Nazis. They become rude, irrational, never looking into my sources etc. I just have to shut the f... up, and I'm summarily banned. Many cannot have a one-on-one discussion but rely on the biggest bully to tell them what to think or believe. Will it be different on this forum, or will I have the indulgence of at least the pious sounding folks in this thread to save me from the pack?



Um, I've been here since day one. In fact I remember the old MB as well. There are many people I don't always agree with, and thats fine as long as people are polite and don't act like trolls.
News, views, and reviews on books and graphic novels for young adult.

http://yabookmarks.blogspot.com/

User avatar
lauragill
Avid Reader
Location: Southern California
Contact:

Postby lauragill » Sat July 6th, 2013, 5:46 pm

"egmond codfried" wrote:This is of great interest of me as I made some great scientific historical discoveries and just mentioning them seems to turn many people into murderous Nazis. They become rude, irrational, never looking into my sources etc. I just have to shut the f... up, and I'm summarily banned. Many cannot have a one-on-one discussion but rely on the biggest bully to tell them what to think or believe. Will it be different on this forum, or will I have the indulgence of at least the pious sounding folks in this thread to save me from the pack?


You're not going to devolve into a lot of debunked Afrocentric nonsense such as Jane Austen being black the way you did on other boards, are you? This is a forum for the discussion of historical fiction.
Last edited by lauragill on Sat July 6th, 2013, 6:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: n/a

User avatar
Divia
Bibliomaniac
Location: Always Cloudy, Central New York

Postby Divia » Sat July 6th, 2013, 6:35 pm

"lauragill" wrote:You're not going to devolve into a lot of debunked Afrocentric nonsense such as Jane Austen being black the way you did on other boards, are you? This is a forum for the discussion of historical fiction.


The answer to that question is yes.

I think the ban hammer should come down so we can oblige him and then he can list us as another forum he was banned from. It's a win win. :D
News, views, and reviews on books and graphic novels for young adult.

http://yabookmarks.blogspot.com/

User avatar
DianeL
Bibliophile
Location: Midatlantic east coast, United States
Contact:

Postby DianeL » Sat July 6th, 2013, 11:36 pm

Okay, it seems this new member has a history. I've certainly never seen lauragill as shrill nor persecuting, so it's a shame if I have fed a troll.

It's a pity when people destroy what could be good discussion and focus a lot of energy onto themselves and unnecessary dramas. It can discredit far more people than just the trolls, if they're waving around theories as if they wanted to have any sort of actual discourse about them.
"To be the queen, she agreed to be the widow!"



***



The pre-modern world was willing to attribute charisma to women well before it was willing to attribute sustained rationality to them.

---Medieval Kingship, Henry A. Myers



***



http://dianelmajor.blogspot.com/

I'm a Twit: @DianeLMajor

User avatar
lauragill
Avid Reader
Location: Southern California
Contact:

Postby lauragill » Sun July 7th, 2013, 12:41 am

"DianeL" wrote:Okay, it seems this new member has a history. I've certainly never seen lauragill as shrill nor persecuting, so it's a shame if I have fed a troll.

It's a pity when people destroy what could be good discussion and focus a lot of energy onto themselves and unnecessary dramas. It can discredit far more people than just the trolls, if they're waving around theories as if they wanted to have any sort of actual discourse about them.


Well, I don't like to say bad things about people, but Cogfried has an Afrocentric agenda that involves classifying Caucasians as "albinos," and insisting that "blue (royal) blood is black blood." It's not his theories that bother me so much as the Afrocentric shouting matches it encourages. This is a forum about historical novels.


Return to “Debate/Rant Forum”