Historical text from Comixfan:

Stuart V

Aug 6, 2011, 07:16 pm


Just spotted this and felt the need to share. This is why I don't trust Wikipedia...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadly_Ernest

If it all looks good to you, someone may have fixed it now I've pointed it out (though it's survived there unchallenged for over three years, per the site history) - just click on page history to see the version I'm on about. If it's not been fixed, I'm sure everyone will spot the problem. It's not exactly subtle...




captainswift

Aug 6, 2011, 09:30 pm

It's sad that there's more fabricated information than actual information.




Stuart V

Aug 6, 2011, 09:37 pm


I just find it funny that, despite Wiki's claims that they are accurate and that dodgy info is generally spotted and removed in minutes, that this has sat there unchallenged for over three years. And it's not an isolated example of long unchallenged fake info I've found on Wiki, though it is the biggest single piece. I keep finding fake info that has been there for years.




Eduardo M.

Aug 6, 2011, 10:03 pm


This burns me up. I've posted stuff on Wiki I don't know how many times that I KNOW FOR A FACT is correct only for it to be removed. AAARRRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




Stuart V

Aug 6, 2011, 10:51 pm

Eduardo M. wrote:

This burns me up. I've posted stuff on Wiki I don't know how many times that I KNOW FOR A FACT is correct only for it to be removed. AAARRRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I know the feeling. I once had to argue the case for the Richard and Mary Parker entry being wrong, listing them as SHIELD agents when, in fact, they died before SHIELD was formed (this was pre-Brotherhood of the Shield being created, which isn't the same organization anyway). The only evidence for them being SHIELD agents is the cover of Untold Tales of Spider-Man #1. I posted a link to Tom Brevoort's own Blog at Marvel.com, where he said "And yes, that cover copy proclaiming Richard and Mary parker Agents of SHIELD was a mistake, and it was entirely made by me. I remembered that they had been secret agents, and I somehow misrecalled Stan saying that they had been working for SHIELD, even though he didn't. I really should have checked that."

The response? "why does the article image have Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. on it if they ever weren't agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. I am thinking we need an reliable reference on this and I am not talking about issue, I am talking about an reliable link on an autobiography or something reliable."

Hard of comprehension, anyone? :cuckoo: My post had already answered the question "why does the image say SHIELD if they weren't agents of SHIELD?" Tom B, who wrote it, said he made a mistake. And "reliable link/reliable reference"? Umm. The man who wrote the text and now says he made a mistake isn't a reliable reference?:wall: His personal blog on Marvel's own site, so we know for sure it is him, isn't a reliable link? :# I'd cited the handbook entries for Richard and Mary Parker, and for SHIELD, but they are not reliable biographies?:ohwell: (How Richard and Mary Parker, fictional characters, could be expected to have written an AUTObiography, fails me. [img]file:///C:\Users\Andy\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.gif[/img]Besides, they are both dead and would be bound by the US equivalent of the Official Secrets Act [img]file:///C:\Users\Andy\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image002.gif[/img])

Any wonder I despair every time I see someone online tell a fan who has asked about where to find character bios "don't bother with the handbooks, use Wikipedia"?




Andy E. Nystrom

Aug 7, 2011, 01:42 am


This reminds me of something I wanted to get people's thoughts on regarding an error in a couple of Wikipedia entries that has the potential to be retroactively not an error. Major spoilers to the Chaos War event below to clarify what I mean.

This relates to the entries on Yellowjacket (DeMara) and Swordsman (Duquesne). At the end of Chaos War: Dead Avengers#3, YJ and Swordsman were still around, and YJ at least appeared at the beginning of Chaos War#5, which takes place after the former series' conclusion. Herclues fixes history and afterwards neither character are around but neither are shown returning to their graves either.

From this, someone put on their Wikipedia entries that they both survived Chaos War. Tom Brevoort, on Forumspring, has, however said they are both back to being dead. BUT in fairness to whoever made those changes on Wikipedia, the storytelling was a bit muddy in CW#5, and while Brevoort certainly counts as a reliable souirce, it was never firmly established in official Marvel material that they were back to being dead. Their return to the grave could arguably being a case like Henry Gyrich being said to be Li'l Petey in interviews but not in print. Furthermore, since thei were never shown returning to death, it would be extremely easy to bring them back. After all, Hercules brought back Alpha Flight for reasons I'm not clear on from a story perspective, so a couple of former Avengers would actually make more sense.

So the question is: is it worth the effort to make the changes given Wikipedia's, uh, challenges, and if so, would it be better to definitely say they're dead and link to the Forumspring bit, or to simply note that CW#5 is ambiguous regarding their living status?




Stuart V

Aug 7, 2011, 03:25 am

Andy E. Nystrom wrote:

This reminds me of something I wanted to get people's thoughts on regarding an error in a couple of Wikipedia entries that has the potential to be retroactively not an error. Major spoilers to the Chaos War event below to clarify what I mean.

This relates to the entries on Yellowjacket (DeMara) and Swordsman (Duquesne). At the end of Chaos War: Dead Avengers#3, YJ and Swordsman were still around, and YJ at least appeared at the beginning of Chaos War#5, which takes place after the former series' conclusion. Herclues fixes history and afterwards neither character are around but neither are shown returning to their graves either.

From this, someone put on their Wikipedia entries that they both survived Chaos War. Tom Brevoort, on Forumspring, has, however said they are both back to being dead. BUT in fairness to whoever made those changes on Wikipedia, the storytelling was a bit muddy in CW#5, and while Brevoort certainly counts as a reliable souirce, it was never firmly established in official Marvel material that they were back to being dead. Their return to the grave could arguably being a case like Henry Gyrich being said to be Li'l Petey in interviews but not in print. Furthermore, since thei were never shown returning to death, it would be extremely easy to bring them back. After all, Hercules brought back Alpha Flight for reasons I'm not clear on from a story perspective, so a couple of former Avengers would actually make more sense.

So the question is: is it worth the effort to make the changes given Wikipedia's, uh, challenges, and if so, would it be better to definitely say they're dead and link to the Forumspring bit, or to simply note that CW#5 is ambiguous regarding their living status?

I'd say it would be fair to note that the ending is ambiguous, but that Tom Brevoort has confirmed on Forumspring that they are dead again. That's simply noting the facts as they are presented.

As for "worth the effort" - I doubt anything to do with Wikipedia is worth the effort.



Eduardo M.

Aug 7, 2011, 03:08 pm

Stuart V wrote:

I'd say it would be fair to note that the ending is ambiguous, but that Tom Brevoort has confirmed on Forumspring that they are dead again. That's simply noting the facts as they are presented.

As for "worth the effort" - I doubt anything to do with Wikipedia is worth the effort.

The same thing happen to numerous entries post-Blackest Night. I personally corrected a few entries that ended stating a character may have been returned to life. The only dead characters that returned to life in that event by the Distinguished Competition were those seen ressurecting in the last issue. Anyone else is still dead. The writer even said so numerous times.

Like you Stu, I hate using wiki as a reliable source. If anything, I use as a start point and try to go to other sources to see what matches.




Stuart V

Aug 7, 2011, 03:19 pm

Eduardo M.[i wrote:

][/i]Like you Stu, I hate using wiki as a reliable source. If anything, I use as a start point and try to go to other sources to see what matches.

I never use wiki as a source, reliable or otherwise (and it's pretty much always otherwise). I do sometimes check it to see if it mentions recent appearances of a given character that I might otherwise overlook - but if it does, I then always, without exception, go the comics themselves. It's only useful for helping to identify a reference list of comics to read, and even then you take that list with a pinch of salt.




Eduardo M.

Aug 7, 2011, 03:56 pm

Stuart V wrote:

I never use wiki as a source, reliable or otherwise (and it's pretty much always otherwise). I do sometimes check it to see if it mentions recent appearances of a given character that I might otherwise overlook - but if it does, I then always, without exception, go the comics themselves. It's only useful for helping to identify a reference list of comics to read, and even then you take that list with a pinch of salt.

Even then. For the longest time the wiki had next to nothing on John Steele. It wasn't until I had read The Marvels Project and Secret Avengers that the entry filled out. Heck I think the entry for TMP is still in need of expanding




DeadpoolRP

Aug 8, 2011, 01:15 am


Yeah, I probably would have caught this if I'd ever read the page. However, Deadly Ernest is a pretty minor character, plus I tend to read hero pages more than villain pages, so that probably never would have happened.

I think the reliability of Wikipedia varies, and pages for more popular characters tend to be more accurate (albeit sometimes overly verbose), while crap added to pages for minor characters often isn't noticed very quickly. I know I correct crap on some of the main X-Men pages pretty quickly and pretty regularly, so I tend to think I help out a bit.

I have had my share of problems, though, with Wiki editors removing correct information I've added (lots of people had a problem for a long time with accepting the X-Men's current membership status quo, for example) and/or not wanting to accept handbooks as sources for various (stupid and unfounded) reasons, as several contributors on here are aware. Oh well, nothing's perfect, I guess.

I figure, though, that Wikipedia is probably the main (online) source that people use to look up comics info, and while I always recommend the handbooks to people, I know lots of them will never use them, so I hope I'm doing my part to keep some of Wikipedia more accurate.




Stuart V

Aug 8, 2011, 08:10 am

DeadpoolRP wrote:

Yeah, I probably would have caught this if I'd ever read the page. However, Deadly Ernest is a pretty minor character, plus I tend to read hero pages more than villain pages, so that probably never would have happened.

I think the reliability of Wikipedia varies, and pages for more popular characters tend to be more accurate (albeit sometimes overly verbose), while crap added to pages for minor characters often isn't noticed very quickly.

I'd concur with that analysis. Obvious garbage gets spotted on the major pages more quickly, though, as various fake civilian identities demonstrated, more subtle stuff can and has survived for ages.

I know I correct crap on some of the main X-Men pages pretty quickly and pretty regularly, so I tend to think I help out a bit.
You are definitely one of the people on the side of the angels in regards to Wiki. The problem is, that almost by definition, you are outnumbered. Since Wiki gives everyone equal voice when it comes to editing, that means that for any given topic the clueless, inane and malevolent are given as much weight as experts, and experts, by their very nature, are clearly rarer than laypeople.

DeadpoolRP wrote:

I have had my share of problems, though, with Wiki editors removing correct information I've added (lots of people had a problem for a long time with accepting the X-Men's current membership status quo, for example) and/or not wanting to accept handbooks as sources for various (stupid and unfounded) reasons, as several contributors on here are aware.

I have the same problem. I find it funny that genuine edits meet such swift and persistant resistance, while the malign ones seem to sail through and go unnoticed for years.

DeadpoolRP wrote:

I figure, though, that Wikipedia is probably the main (online) source that people use to look up comics info, and while I always recommend the handbooks to people, I know lots of them will never use them, so I hope I'm doing my part to keep some of Wikipedia more accurate.

And that's the only reason I still go on Wikipedia - because, flawed as it is, if people are going to be dumb enough to take what it says as gospel, then it behooves me to make sure that the worst excesses in the areas that I am knowledgeable about get corrected.




Rayeye

Aug 8, 2011, 06:19 pm

The whole wiki thing frustrates me too. I have had a lot of discussions with people who claimed specific comic information being true, but when I asked where they found the information, they admitted wiki was their source.
I also hate it that people made up a lot of real names for minor Marvel characters at wiki. I don't know for sure but I believe that was the case with Tattoo, Redneck and Radian and somehow the writer of the lastest New Warriors took these real names for truth and brought them into the comics.




Michael Regan

Aug 9, 2011, 08:25 am

Rayeye wrote:

The whole wiki thing frustrates me too. I have had a lot of discussions with people who claimed specific comic information being true, but when I asked where they found the information, they admitted wiki was their source.
I also hate it that people made up a lot of real names for minor Marvel characters at wiki. I don't know for sure but I believe that was the case with Tattoo, Redneck and Radian and somehow the writer of the lastest New Warriors took these real names for truth and brought them into the comics.

A circular problem if professionals also use Wiki and don't verify the posted information.




Stuart V

Aug 9, 2011, 09:49 am
 

Michael Regan wrote:

A circular problem if professionals also use Wiki and don't verify the posted information.

Thing is, while I won't use wiki for serious research or trust their information, I do browse there from time to time, and I do correct information I know to be wrong. I always, without fail, include references which can be checked to verify any changes I make. Despite that, almost always (there's the very, very rare exception), I find another user will swiftly move in and undo my edits, often without even bothering to discuss it. When I then re-do them, and request it be discussed rather than blindly reverted, what usually happens is that they revert anyway, but, if pushed, come to the talk pages to discuss it. What then follows is an exercise in frustration and demonstration of who unable to actually comprehend things - reference my example regarding Richard and Mary Parker. Seriously, I get "what evidence do you have for your changes?", to which I respond "the references I cited from the outset. Why do you think I cited them?" or variations on that theme, almost every time. Peter David mentioned a similar problem on his blog a while back; one self-appointed uber-editor who refused to believe dozens of other people that a multi-book published author was a genuine writer, simply because she'd not heard of them, and so she kept trying to get the page deleted.

Why would professionals want to waste their time and energies fixing errors on wiki, when they find that the utterly clueless can and do regularly come in to make it incorrect, and that wiki seems to encourage said numpties?




Michael Regan

Aug 9, 2011, 05:15 pm


I did mean using it as a reference wihtout questioning content, but I agree with you completely.

I have taken a lesser approach on wiki sites when I've noticed incorrect items, to much the same result. I have not edited the content, but instead pointed out errors on discussion pages (giving the original author, if there actually is one, a chance to correct the text), but the majority of the time my comments and/or questions are not replied to and the error remains.




Roger Ott

Aug 10, 2011, 01:17 am


If these types of people keep changing facts, and their numbers keep growing, I shudder to think what will happen to the world's history in the long run.




Michael Regan

Aug 10, 2011, 09:38 am

Roger Ott wrote:

If these types of people keep changing facts, and their numbers keep growing, I shudder to think what will happen to the world's history in the long run.

A firm example of how solid, printed word is superior. Certainly printed works can contain errors, but the errors would be limited, traceable, and accountable.




Andy E. Nystrom

Aug 14, 2011, 01:47 am


One recent change to Wikipedia I do like is that you can rate articles accorfding to how trustworthy, objective, complete, and well-written they are. Maybe when editors start digging their heels on false info re the Marvel Universe, we can swarm in as a group and lower the ratings of at least the Trustworthy category until the fixes are made. Only if there's just cause to do so, of course; give them a chance to keep the corrections first.




Stuart V

Aug 18, 2011, 10:16 pm


New bit of Wiki misinformation. Apparently the real name of Tangerine of Excalibur / MI13 fame is "Tania Reen." That bit of blantantly dodgy info was on Wikipedia since 2009, with nobody querying it. I've removed it, but if anyone finds it on other sites that have been dumb enough to take Wiki at its word, please fix it.

Last edited by Andy E. Nystrom (1/08/2020 5:59 pm)