Wiki just a little short of the facts

Discussion in 'North Africa & the Med' started by spidge, Jun 2, 2010.

  1. spidge

    spidge RAAF RESEARCHER

    Tobruk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Noticed this when doing a search for my Sister-in-Law.

    Tobruk was the site of a colony of ancient Greeks, and, later, of a Roman fortress guarding the frontier of Cyrenaica.[1] Over the centuries, Tobruk also served as a waystation along the coastal caravan route.[1] By 1911, Tobruk had become an Italian military post, but during World War II, in 1941, Allied forces, mainly the Australian 9th Division ("the Rats of Tobruk") took the city and prolonged fighting against German forces followed

    Tobruk was taken initially by the Australian 6th Division troops. The 9th fell back to Tobruk and then held it until Oct-Nov 1941.
     
  2. Tom Canning

    Tom Canning WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    Spidge - You sound surprised !
    Cheers
     
  3. Slipdigit

    Slipdigit Old Hickory Recon

    Bring it to their attention. I do so regularly.
     
  4. Hugh MacLean

    Hugh MacLean Senior Member

    Wikipedia is a nightmare :( - they have so much information that is incorrect; It's like changing history. Never, never take anything from Wiki as being true - check other sources and check again. There is so much incorrect information passing around the Web because it's written and linked from Wiki. I don't pass on any Wikipedia links to anyone now.
    Regards
    Hugh
     
  5. idler

    idler GeneralList

    You can just go in and edit it (that's the point of it, after all) but it can be like pushing water uphill.
     
  6. Slipdigit

    Slipdigit Old Hickory Recon

    In one Wikipedia entry concerning a German unit in Normandy that I found, there is a paragraph that was obviously lifted verbatim from this forum or WW2F....because I wrote it!

    No attribution was given, btw.
     
  7. Za Rodinu

    Za Rodinu Hot air manufacturer

    At least that one should be right :)
     
  8. Vitesse

    Vitesse Senior Member

    In one Wikipedia entry concerning a German unit in Normandy that I found, there is a paragraph that was obviously lifted verbatim from this forum or WW2F....because I wrote it!

    No attribution was given, btw.
    Which demonstrates one of the main problems with Wikipedia - much of it is unsourced and despite their claims there is no real peer review system. Added to that, they don't accept original research, so even if you know better than the author of a Wiki article, if you can't point to it in a book or published article they'll delete it.

    My main dealings with Wiki have been in the field of motor sport history, but I and many others have given up on trying to debunk a number of myths and half-truths because some bloody idiot will always come along and "correct" what you've written "because it's in a book" - so it must be right :mad:
     
  9. spidge

    spidge RAAF RESEARCHER

    You can just go in and edit it (that's the point of it, after all) but it can be like pushing water uphill.

    Hi Idler,

    What are the steps to take to alter the wording.

    Do you have to join to do so?


    Cheers

    Geoff
     
  10. Vitesse

    Vitesse Senior Member

    Just press "edit" at the top of the page - from a security point of view it's advisable to create an account, but it's not compulsory.
     
  11. idler

    idler GeneralList

    Some amusement can be gained from reading the history and discussion pages behind the front page. In fact, it might be worth checking to see if your correction has already been made...
     
  12. Slipdigit

    Slipdigit Old Hickory Recon

    Which demonstrates one of the main problems with Wikipedia - much of it is unsourced and despite their claims there is no real peer review system. Added to that, they don't accept original research, so even if you know better than the author of a Wiki article, if you can't point to it in a book or published article they'll delete it.

    My main dealings with Wiki have been in the field of motor sport history, but I and many others have given up on trying to debunk a number of myths and half-truths because some bloody idiot will always come along and "correct" what you've written "because it's in a book" - so it must be right :mad:

    Nevermind that the book in question was written in 1945, by the division who most certainly would declare a defending enemy division to be a "crack" division.

    I argued with one "editor" who stated unequivocally that in SPR, the Ranger battalion depicted was in the 1st Infantry Division. Nevermind that Rangers were never part of any division or that Capt Miller later reported to a 29th ID headquarters. I know it is a work of fiction, but...
     
  13. Ron Goldstein

    Ron Goldstein WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran Patron

  14. marcus69x

    marcus69x I love WW2 meah!!!

    Ah, good old wiki's done it once again.
     
  15. spidge

    spidge RAAF RESEARCHER

    I have edited it and I think it has held. If you see the old version press reload or refresh.

    Thanks for the instructions Vitesse. I wouldn't want to edit there too often - it does my head in!

    Tobruk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Cheers

    Geoff
     
  16. sol

    sol Very Senior Member

    Well I don't know is this a right place but it looks right to me to post this here instead of opening another thread. Searching for some info about the first Burma Campaign I found some serious mistakes.

    In the article, Battle of Yenangyaung is some reason it was classified as "Allied victory" while it was actually the British troops there were defeated and suffered heavy losses. Similar thing is made for Battle of Toungoo, also classified as "Allied victory". Well, at Toungoo, Chinese troops successfully resisted for some time much stronger Japanese units but after much hard fighting they were in the end defeated and Japanese occupied very important airfield there but even more important they also sized only other bridge on the Sittang River except those (in)famous the Railway Bridge blown before during campaign. This was to prove letter in the campaign as mayor disaster for Chinese troops in Burma and resulted in much faster fall of Burma.

    Both this articles as major source put the book:

    - Hsu Long-hsuen and Chang Ming-kai, History of The Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945), 2nd Ed. ,1971. Translated by Wen Ha-hsiung , Chung Wu Publishing; 33, 140th Lane, Tung-hwa Street, Taipei, Taiwan Republic of China

    ,and also some other Chinese sources. Not that I have anything against that (Battle for Toungoo was basically a Chinese battle) but or this book or the writer of the articles give accounts of this battle wrongly.

    Not that the articles based on the British sources are faultless. In article about the Battle of Pegu, except some mistekes about naming the units which fought there, author completely failed to mention 48th Indian Infantry Brigade under Brigadier Hugh-Jones which fought very well in this battle and which in the end succeeded to broke road block and enable for rest of units to retreat without any opposition to Taukkyan.

    So if you searching for some info about the first Burma Campaign be careful and use also some other sources except Wiki.
     

Share This Page