From: SPUI drspui@gmail.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:State_Road_913_%28Florida% 29#A_bulletproof_argument... Am I right or is the IP right? Do commercially-produced maps that show an unsigned designation continuing along a causeway trump Department of Transportation sources?
Why does either source need to "trump" the other?
Why not note the discrepancy in the article and give the sources for each of the two contradictory descriptions?
Daniel P. B. Smith wrote:
From: SPUI drspui@gmail.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:State_Road_913_%28Florida% 29#A_bulletproof_argument... Am I right or is the IP right? Do commercially-produced maps that show an unsigned designation continuing along a causeway trump Department of Transportation sources?
Why does either source need to "trump" the other?
Why not note the discrepancy in the article and give the sources for each of the two contradictory descriptions?
Because normally we don't report on errors on maps. We don't say "FDOT turned over part of SR 2 to Nassau County in the 1980s, but some maps still show it as a state road."
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 11:07:40 -0400, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
Because normally we don't report on errors on maps. We don't say "FDOT turned over part of SR 2 to Nassau County in the 1980s, but some maps still show it as a state road."
Why not, if it's verifiable? Surely that is an interesting and useful piece of information?
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 11:07:40 -0400, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
Because normally we don't report on errors on maps. We don't say "FDOT turned over part of SR 2 to Nassau County in the 1980s, but some maps still show it as a state road."
Why not, if it's verifiable? Surely that is an interesting and useful piece of information?
How is it interesting that maps make mistakes? In an article about a town, would we say that a map once spelled it incorrectly?
On 10/21/06, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
How is it interesting that maps make mistakes? In an article about a town, would we say that a map once spelled it incorrectly?
In some cases such as where that resulted in a name change or the like.
geni wrote:
On 10/21/06, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
How is it interesting that maps make mistakes? In an article about a town, would we say that a map once spelled it incorrectly?
In some cases such as where that resulted in a name change or the like.
Strawman.
SPUI wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 11:07:40 -0400, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
Because normally we don't report on errors on maps. We don't say "FDOT turned over part of SR 2 to Nassau County in the 1980s, but some maps still show it as a state road."
Why not, if it's verifiable? Surely that is an interesting and useful piece of information?
How is it interesting that maps make mistakes? In an article about a town, would we say that a map once spelled it incorrectly?
If it's a _widespread_ error, then people are likely to come across it independently. The information that it's a widespread error is quite useful in this situation. We have whole entire articles on urban legends and the like, adding a line to an article like this doesn't seem out of line to me.
Bryan Derksen wrote:
SPUI wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 11:07:40 -0400, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
Because normally we don't report on errors on maps. We don't say "FDOT turned over part of SR 2 to Nassau County in the 1980s, but some maps still show it as a state road."
Why not, if it's verifiable? Surely that is an interesting and useful piece of information?
How is it interesting that maps make mistakes? In an article about a town, would we say that a map once spelled it incorrectly?
If it's a _widespread_ error, then people are likely to come across it independently. The information that it's a widespread error is quite useful in this situation. We have whole entire articles on urban legends and the like, adding a line to an article like this doesn't seem out of line to me.
It wouldn't be adding a line. The IP continued to change the mileage in the infobox, the description of the route, and several other articles to show that the bridge is part of SR 913.
SPUI wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
If it's a _widespread_ error, then people are likely to come across it independently. The information that it's a widespread error is quite useful in this situation. We have whole entire articles on urban legends and the like, adding a line to an article like this doesn't seem out of line to me.
It wouldn't be adding a line. The IP continued to change the mileage in the infobox, the description of the route, and several other articles to show that the bridge is part of SR 913.
The inclusive version wouldn't necessarily have to be an exact hybrid of the two versions you're fighting over. The information on the widespread error could be in a footnote that all of the "disputed" facts get labelled with, in which case it would be a single line or so of text which gets linked to from multiple places within the article.
Bryan Derksen wrote:
SPUI wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
If it's a _widespread_ error, then people are likely to come across it independently. The information that it's a widespread error is quite useful in this situation. We have whole entire articles on urban legends and the like, adding a line to an article like this doesn't seem out of line to me.
It wouldn't be adding a line. The IP continued to change the mileage in the infobox, the description of the route, and several other articles to show that the bridge is part of SR 913.
The inclusive version wouldn't necessarily have to be an exact hybrid of the two versions you're fighting over. The information on the widespread error could be in a footnote that all of the "disputed" facts get labelled with, in which case it would be a single line or so of text which gets linked to from multiple places within the article.
I think that's one of the things I tried, and guess what... the IP reverted me.
SPUI wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
The inclusive version wouldn't necessarily have to be an exact hybrid of the two versions you're fighting over. The information on the widespread error could be in a footnote that all of the "disputed" facts get labelled with, in which case it would be a single line or so of text which gets linked to from multiple places within the article.
I think that's one of the things I tried, and guess what... the IP reverted me.
It sounds like the unregistered editor is being silly, then. But we're now getting into specific details of the argument itself, which I'm not at all familiar with. I've just been giving general principles so far. Perhaps take it to RfC at this point, if you're completely at loggerheads?
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 15:52:55 -0400, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
Why not, if it's verifiable? Surely that is an interesting and useful piece of information?
How is it interesting that maps make mistakes? In an article about a town, would we say that a map once spelled it incorrectly?
You have the map, you discover that the Gubmint say something else. You look at Wikipedia: you get the answer that it is the map which is wrong. Presto! Wikipedia has fulfilled its purpose, or at least a small part of it for one person on one day. No?
Guy (JzG)
On 10/21/06, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
How is it interesting that maps make mistakes?
It's helpful, especially if other sources disagree with the Wikipedia article, to point out that other sources are known incorrect.
Otherwise we'll get the same wrong info inserted again and again, for one thing.
-Matt
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 11:07:40 -0400, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
Because normally we don't report on errors on maps. We don't say "FDOT turned over part of SR 2 to Nassau County in the 1980s, but some maps still show it as a state road."
Why not, if it's verifiable? Surely that is an interesting and useful piece of information?
For once I agree with you about something. :-)
I suppose that in some ways this is related to NPOV issues, but where there is no real dispute. This kind of innocent error tends to be perpetrated until they are widely pointed out, and that needs to be done for as long as the error keeps recurring. In another area the term "brontosaurus" was deprecated 95 years after it was introduced, but we can't avoid the fact that this creature is still ubiquitous in children's literature. Much of this is written by people with no understanding of paleontology. We'll probably need to keep pointing out this error much longer than the one about the Nassau County roads.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 11:07:40 -0400, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
Because normally we don't report on errors on maps. We don't say "FDOT turned over part of SR 2 to Nassau County in the 1980s, but some maps still show it as a state road."
Why not, if it's verifiable? Surely that is an interesting and useful piece of information?
For once I agree with you about something. :-)
I suppose that in some ways this is related to NPOV issues, but where there is no real dispute. This kind of innocent error tends to be perpetrated until they are widely pointed out, and that needs to be done for as long as the error keeps recurring. In another area the term "brontosaurus" was deprecated 95 years after it was introduced, but we can't avoid the fact that this creature is still ubiquitous in children's literature. Much of this is written by people with no understanding of paleontology. We'll probably need to keep pointing out this error much longer than the one about the Nassau County roads.
So you'd like to fill up road articles with reports of maps that show them still existing, or not existing, or going incorrectly? Talk about "cruft"...
SPUI wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
I suppose that in some ways this is related to NPOV issues, but where there is no real dispute. This kind of innocent error tends to be perpetrated until they are widely pointed out, and that needs to be done for as long as the error keeps recurring. In another area the term "brontosaurus" was deprecated 95 years after it was introduced, but we can't avoid the fact that this creature is still ubiquitous in children's literature. Much of this is written by people with no understanding of paleontology. We'll probably need to keep pointing out this error much longer than the one about the Nassau County roads.
So you'd like to fill up road articles with reports of maps that show them still existing, or not existing, or going incorrectly? Talk about "cruft"...
There are probably a not insignificant number of editors who would consider articles about roads to be _entirely_ "cruft". I don't agree with that myself, but it's an indication of how cruft is in the eye of the beholder.
Maybe if the article was about Florida as a whole, or roads in general, then mentioning specific roads being mislabelled on certain maps would be too niggling a bit of minutiae to justify including. But in an article that's specifically about that one particular road, it seems to me that within that context it's not necessarily trivial. Especially not when the source-in-error is one that's commonly used.
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 16:11:27 -0400, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
So you'd like to fill up road articles with reports of maps that show them still existing, or not existing, or going incorrectly?
Sure, it's very useful to know when a map is wrong, don't you think?
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 16:11:27 -0400, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
So you'd like to fill up road articles with reports of maps that show them still existing, or not existing, or going incorrectly?
Sure, it's very useful to know when a map is wrong, don't you think?
Yes, and the description given in the article will disagree with the map. You don't need to actually say "maps that show otherwise are wrong".
However, none of this deals with the actual problem: the IP kept reverting to say that SR 913 uses the causeway. I think he even reverted when I said that it doesn't but some maps say it does.
SPUI wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 16:11:27 -0400, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
So you'd like to fill up road articles with reports of maps that show them still existing, or not existing, or going incorrectly?
Sure, it's very useful to know when a map is wrong, don't you think?
Yes, and the description given in the article will disagree with the map. You don't need to actually say "maps that show otherwise are wrong".
But it's not unreasonable to say "these specific popular and widely-known maps show otherwise, but they are in error."
However, none of this deals with the actual problem: the IP kept reverting to say that SR 913 uses the causeway. I think he even reverted when I said that it doesn't but some maps say it does.
Do you know if this non-logged-in user even knows that such a thing as "edit summaries" exist, and can be viewed with that "history" link he might never have clicked on before?
If you put it right in the article, either inline or as a footnote, then that guarantees that not only will the current guy you're disputing see it but also all future editors who stumble across it and would otherwise think "hey, that's not what my map says. Stupid Wikipedia!"
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Do you know if this non-logged-in user even knows that such a thing as "edit summaries" exist, and can be viewed with that "history" link he might never have clicked on before?
Never mind, I just checked the talk page and the unregistered editor looks like he's fully aware of the situation.
My suggestion for footnoting still stands, though, since it still handles future editors as well.
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 20:50:05 -0600, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Never mind, I just checked the talk page and the unregistered editor looks like he's fully aware of the situation.
Seems to me like SPUI has finally found another editor who is as unshakeable in his certainties as SPUI himself :-)
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 20:50:05 -0600, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Never mind, I just checked the talk page and the unregistered editor looks like he's fully aware of the situation.
Seems to me like SPUI has finally found another editor who is as unshakeable in his certainties as SPUI himself :-)
Er? Firstly, my statement didn't indicate "unshakeability" - I said it _looks_ like he's aware of the situation. I'm usually quite careful to weasel-word my assertions in discussions like this (for example, I just changed "always" to "usually" in this line in case there exists a post where I failed to do so :)
And secondly, it looks pretty clear to me. On the talk page I find paragraphs from the IP in question such as:
SPUI, please stop removing the reference by USDOT regarding their contract list for various toll facilities. Federal contracts are very specific and often quite detailed (even more so than many laws), and if anybody knows the details of a contract with the Federal government, it's the Federal government. Period. Because the contract report was so specific regarding SR 913/Rickenbacker Causeway, any disputes you have with the reference you should take up with USDOT, and any further removal of the references will be taken up with admins... at least. Your removals are bordering on bad faith, to put it diplomatically. Remember how "wrong" B.Wind and I were about the former SR 5A?
and
SPUI wrote "Assuming that's not misleading, it could apply to the road between US 1 and the toll booths, which is named Rickenbacker Causeway." Wrong - the road north of the toll booths is not Rickenbacker Causeway but Southwest 26th Road, and it has been that way since before the original Rickenbacker Causeway was opened in 1947. In fact the Rickenbacker Causeway is the southward continuation of SW 26th Road.
In addition, SPUI's assertion of "Basically, anything not by FDOT calling it SR 913 is making generalizations, and cannot be relied on to get the extent right" is interesting in itself as it declares his bias without giving references indicating that there is no other reliable source of SR information, discounting both the local governments, the Highway Patrol, the Federal government, or anything else that he refuses to consider. This is not a case of objective editing but one of hero worship, and he is not willing to concede that either A) there is no definitive FDOT source stating the location of the termini, or B) that, despite being a collection of human beings, FDOT makes the occasional error, too (and the errors have been well documented, including those by SPUI on his former site). In this case, he'd rather press his argument about his interpretation of the evidence instead of resolving the issue. The only dispute regarding this is in SPUI's mind. I shall gladly del
ete this paragraph upon evidence to the contrary.
Which certainly doesn't seem like stuff that would be written by an editor who doesn't even know how to check the edit summaries and has no idea why his edits keep vanishing.
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Which certainly doesn't seem like stuff that would be written by an editor who doesn't even know how to check the edit summaries and has no idea why his edits keep vanishing.
And in another just-noticed-after-I-pushed-"send" update, I see that this argument has been going on in some form or another since April - those paragraphs I posted here as examples were from back then, though there are recent ones as well. Considering how long this has been going on I'd definitely recommend dispute resolution at this point, the advice of the mailing list on the sourcing issue itself is probably not going to help much.
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 11:54:22 -0600, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Seems to me like SPUI has finally found another editor who is as unshakeable in his certainties as SPUI himself :-)
Er? Firstly, my statement didn't indicate "unshakeability" - I said it _looks_ like he's aware of the situation. I'm usually quite careful to weasel-word my assertions in discussions like this (for example, I just changed "always" to "usually" in this line in case there exists a post where I failed to do so :)
You know about the great road name war of 2006, don't you? SPUI has a history of doing pretty much what he accuses the IP of.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 11:54:22 -0600, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Seems to me like SPUI has finally found another editor who is as unshakeable in his certainties as SPUI himself :-)
Er? Firstly, my statement didn't indicate "unshakeability" - I said it _looks_ like he's aware of the situation. I'm usually quite careful to weasel-word my assertions in discussions like this (for example, I just changed "always" to "usually" in this line in case there exists a post where I failed to do so :)
You know about the great road name war of 2006, don't you? SPUI has a history of doing pretty much what he accuses the IP of.
Ah. No, I wasn't aware of that. I thought you were talking about _me_ when you said "another editor", and was quite confused. In that case never mind then. :)
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 17:47:01 -0600, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
You know about the great road name war of 2006, don't you? SPUI has a history of doing pretty much what he accuses the IP of.
Ah. No, I wasn't aware of that. I thought you were talking about _me_ when you said "another editor", and was quite confused. In that case never mind then. :)
Oh hell no - I didn't even consider the possibility of that interpretation! Sorry. No, it's SPUI and the anon who seem to be competing for the role of immovable object and irresistible force in this case.
Guy (JzG)
I just posted an email I got from FDOT that confirms what their data shows: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:State_Road_913_%28Florida%29#SQUIDWARD.21 The IP claims that this is original research and won't accept it; is he correct?
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 13:31:54 -0400, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
I just posted an email I got from FDOT that confirms what their data shows: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:State_Road_913_%28Florida%29#SQUIDWARD.21 The IP claims that this is original research and won't accept it; is he correct?
Yes.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 13:31:54 -0400, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
I just posted an email I got from FDOT that confirms what their data shows: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:State_Road_913_%28Florida%29#SQUIDWARD.21 The IP claims that this is original research and won't accept it; is he correct?
Yes.
Even to back up other information?
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 19:37:06 -0400, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
I just posted an email I got from FDOT that confirms what their data shows: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:State_Road_913_%28Florida%29#SQUIDWARD.21 The IP claims that this is original research and won't accept it; is he correct?
Yes.
Even to back up other information?
SPUI, you're never going to get me to back your certainty versus someone else's certainty. What you are experiencing is exactly what other editors experienced with you in respect of road names. The solution is to find a compromise wording which notes *both* sources and the backing for each. That will remain the case until FDOT put up something public to clarify the position.
Guy (JzG)
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Do you know if this non-logged-in user even knows that such a thing as "edit summaries" exist, and can be viewed with that "history" link he might never have clicked on before?
If you put it right in the article, either inline or as a footnote, then that guarantees that not only will the current guy you're disputing see it but also all future editors who stumble across it and would otherwise think "hey, that's not what my map says. Stupid Wikipedia!"
Yes, he's rather well aware of how Wikipedia works.