WWTL FAQ (Version 1.07)

Steve Firth wrote:

> Andrew Tompkins > wrote:
> > Steve Firth wrote:
> > > Scott M. Kozel > wrote:
> > >
> > >> And I'll grant that just because something is "professionally written
> > >> and published", that doesn't guarantee accuracy; but it does provide a
> > >> level of more confidence.
> > >
> > > Why do you keep turning a blind eye to the Nature study that showed
> > > little difference in accuracy between Britannica and Wikipedia?
> >
> > The one you mentioned was done more than 3 years ago at a time when
> > Wikipedia was a third the size, in article count, (at the publishing
> > date) as it is today. Have they done a more recent one showing the same
> > thing?
>
> Not as far as I am aware. Are you still trying to clutch straws in an
> attempt to discredit a source that doesn't support your prejudices?
>
> There's no evidence to suggest that standards at Wikipedia have dived,
> in fact if anything they seem to be tightening.

I agree. In some of the groups an occasional query will crop up about a
wikipedia entry ( mostly less than optimal explanation rather than factual
error ) and I'll go in and edit it. I'm used to report writing so I know how to
'get over' complex facts reasonably well I hope to those who may not be
experts.

Graham

Andrew Tompkins wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
> > Andrew Tompkins wrote:
> >> Eeyore wrote:
> >>> Andrew Tompkins wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I saw a link to a Google Earth type map showing the
> >>>> location of the Denmark Strait as a point rather than a region. I saw a
> >>>> lot of assertions that the HMS Hood went down outside the Denmark
> >>>> Strait. I did not see any sources presented in defense of those
> >>>> assertions. So I say again: Do tell.
> >>> I posted many maps and also definitions of the word "strait".
> >>>
> >>> From its name, I had always imagined Hood was sunk to the North of Iceland.
> >>> This thread resulted in me discovering to my surprise that it sank to the
> >>> SOUTH of Iceland !
> >>>
> >>> We even had an Icelander support my and Steve's view that Hood did not sink
> >>> in the 'Denmark Strait' 'proper' and he has local knowledge we don't.
> >>>
> >>> Here's another map for you.
> >>> http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...x?name=Iceland
> >>>
> >>> The co-ordinates for the site od Hood's wreck are given as " the "vicinity"
> >>> of 63.2200N 032.1700W, or roughly 270 miles / 400km west-southwest of
> >>> Reykjavik, Iceland."
> >>> http://www.hmshood.com/hoodtoday/200...tion/index.htm
> >>>
> >>> Find 63.22 N and 32.17 W on that map and tell me with a striaght fact it's in
> >>> the Denmark Strait please. Fell free to zoom out.
> >>>
> >>> I did but don't know how to provide a link. At the inteception of 64N and 32W
> >>> quite clearly the words "Atlantic Ocean" are present.
> >>>
> >>> You can even click on 63N and 32W and it comes up the same.
> >> Since we're putting up maps, try mine, an actual navigation chart (it
> >> may take some time to load if you are using dial-up at ~700K):
> >>
> >> http://home.comcast.net/~andytom/Hig...tuff/JNC20.jpg
> >
> > It took a couple of seconds but I have fast broadband.
> >
> >
> >> This is a set of scans from the aviation chart that I mentioned before.
> >> The lines don't quite match up but it's close enough to make the
> >> point. It would have cost me $30 to make a single color scan down at
> >> FedEx/Kinko's so I made do with what I had.
> >>
> >> The black circle in the lower left panel shows the location of the
> >> coordinates that you provided. Note the words that pass by just to the
> >> right of that location. Tell me with a straight face that it's not in
> >> the Denmark Strait please.
> >
> > We seem to have a variety of maps that contradict each other then.
> >
> > Going back to the original definition of a strait I posted , they are *Narrow*
> > bodies of water like the Strait of Dover which is itself a subset of the English
> > channel that Scott wanted to call the English Strait IIRC. In fact it is both a
> > channel where wider and a Strait where narrower. Where Hood sank it was 570 mi
> > between Iceland and Geenland. Not quite what I'd call a Strait.
> >
> > Maybe we should call the IMO ?
>
> I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I prefer stuff on navigation
> charts, having used them extensively for a time in my life. You seem to
> prefer worded definitions. I find all too often that those definitions
> don't quite match up with what's out there in the real world, especially
> when it comes to the vagaries of physical features of the world.

AIUI, the location may be called The North Atlantic, The Greenland Sea or the Denmark
Strait depending whose map / chart you look at. I still maintain that that a body of
water 570 mi wide between the 2 land masses is hardly a 'strait'. For comparison look
at the Strait of Dover or Gibraltar.

I suspect there is no strict definitiion.

Graham

Eeyore > wrote:

> > There's no evidence to suggest that standards at Wikipedia have dived,
> > in fact if anything they seem to be tightening.
>
> I agree. In some of the groups an occasional query will crop up about a
> wikipedia entry ( mostly less than optimal explanation rather than factual
> error ) and I'll go in and edit it. I'm used to report writing so I know
> how to 'get over' complex facts reasonably well I hope to those who may
> not be experts.

I was thinking more in terms of the ground rules for how articles are
written and the definition of which sources are acceptable. This tends
to make it simple to identify "opinion pieces" and give a justifcation
for them to be slashed from Wikipedia. It has a long way to go, I'm
astounded that it works at all, but it's a fine example of how anarchy
can lead to a useful outcome.

One advantage over Britannica is that Britannica is all opinion, they
don't publish sources in the same nitpicking detail that Wikipedia does.

Eeyore > wrote:
>
> Andrew Tompkins wrote:
>
>> I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I prefer stuff on navigation
>> charts, having used them extensively for a time in my life. You seem to
>> prefer worded definitions. I find all too often that those definitions
>> don't quite match up with what's out there in the real world, especially
>> when it comes to the vagaries of physical features of the world.
>
> AIUI, the location may be called The North Atlantic, The Greenland Sea or the Denmark
> Strait depending whose map / chart you look at. I still maintain that that a body of
> water 570 mi wide between the 2 land masses is hardly a 'strait'. For comparison look
> at the Strait of Dover or Gibraltar.

The same could be said about the Denmark Strait, as its narrowest point
is over 180 miles wide.

Eeyore wrote:
>
> Andrew Tompkins wrote:
>
>> Eeyore wrote:
>>> Andrew Tompkins wrote:
>>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>>> Andrew Tompkins wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I saw a link to a Google Earth type map showing the
>>>>>> location of the Denmark Strait as a point rather than a region. I saw a
>>>>>> lot of assertions that the HMS Hood went down outside the Denmark
>>>>>> Strait. I did not see any sources presented in defense of those
>>>>>> assertions. So I say again: Do tell.
>>>>> I posted many maps and also definitions of the word "strait".
>>>>>
>>>>> From its name, I had always imagined Hood was sunk to the North of Iceland.
>>>>> This thread resulted in me discovering to my surprise that it sank to the
>>>>> SOUTH of Iceland !
>>>>>
>>>>> We even had an Icelander support my and Steve's view that Hood did not sink
>>>>> in the 'Denmark Strait' 'proper' and he has local knowledge we don't.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's another map for you.
>>>>> http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...x?name=Iceland
>>>>>
>>>>> The co-ordinates for the site od Hood's wreck are given as " the "vicinity"
>>>>> of 63.2200N 032.1700W, or roughly 270 miles / 400km west-southwest of
>>>>> Reykjavik, Iceland."
>>>>> http://www.hmshood.com/hoodtoday/200...tion/index.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> Find 63.22 N and 32.17 W on that map and tell me with a striaght fact it's in
>>>>> the Denmark Strait please. Fell free to zoom out.
>>>>>
>>>>> I did but don't know how to provide a link. At the inteception of 64N and 32W
>>>>> quite clearly the words "Atlantic Ocean" are present.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can even click on 63N and 32W and it comes up the same.
>>>> Since we're putting up maps, try mine, an actual navigation chart (it
>>>> may take some time to load if you are using dial-up at ~700K):
>>>>
>>>> http://home.comcast.net/~andytom/Hig...tuff/JNC20.jpg
>>> It took a couple of seconds but I have fast broadband.
>>>
>>>
>>>> This is a set of scans from the aviation chart that I mentioned before.
>>>> The lines don't quite match up but it's close enough to make the
>>>> point. It would have cost me $30 to make a single color scan down at
>>>> FedEx/Kinko's so I made do with what I had.
>>>>
>>>> The black circle in the lower left panel shows the location of the
>>>> coordinates that you provided. Note the words that pass by just to the
>>>> right of that location. Tell me with a straight face that it's not in
>>>> the Denmark Strait please.
>>> We seem to have a variety of maps that contradict each other then.
>>>
>>> Going back to the original definition of a strait I posted , they are *Narrow*
>>> bodies of water like the Strait of Dover which is itself a subset of the English
>>> channel that Scott wanted to call the English Strait IIRC. In fact it is both a
>>> channel where wider and a Strait where narrower. Where Hood sank it was 570 mi
>>> between Iceland and Geenland. Not quite what I'd call a Strait.
>>>
>>> Maybe we should call the IMO ?
>> I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I prefer stuff on navigation
>> charts, having used them extensively for a time in my life. You seem to
>> prefer worded definitions. I find all too often that those definitions
>> don't quite match up with what's out there in the real world, especially
>> when it comes to the vagaries of physical features of the world.
>
> AIUI, the location may be called The North Atlantic, The Greenland Sea or the Denmark
> Strait depending whose map / chart you look at. I still maintain that that a body of
> water 570 mi wide between the 2 land masses is hardly a 'strait'. For comparison look
> at the Strait of Dover or Gibraltar.
>
> I suspect there is no strict definitiion.
>

Narrow is a relative term. When compared to the narrowest part of the
strait, 570 miles is not narrow. When compared to the distance between
Newfoundland and Spain, 570 miles is definitely narrow. The definitions
that I've seen do not say 'narrowest'. There usually aren't strict
demarcation lines between bodies of water, especially of different
classifications, like there are on land (between countries).

--Andy

Eeyore wrote:
>
> Andrew Tompkins wrote:
>
>> Steve Firth wrote:
>>> Scott M. Kozel > wrote:
>>>
>>>> And I'll grant that just because something is "professionally written
>>>> and published", that doesn't guarantee accuracy; but it does provide a
>>>> level of more confidence.
>>> Why do you keep turning a blind eye to the Nature study that showed
>>> little difference in accuracy between Britannica and Wikipedia?
>> The one you mentioned was done more than 3 years ago at a time when
>> Wikipedia was a third the size, in article count, (at the publishing
>> date) as it is today. Have they done a more recent one showing the same
>> thing?
>
> Are you suggesting it's got worse ? If so, please provide evidence.
>

Wikipedia has grown to 3 times its size 3 years ago. I'm saying that,
with that type of growth, it's not easy keeping almost 3 million
articles current and correct in an environment that is essentially a
free-for-all. The roads project people have enough trouble keeping the
nonsense from the riff-raff out of the hwy articles; and that's just a
small piece of the pie.

--Andy

In article >,
Eeyore > wrote:
>
>Your spellings are a sub-variant of English called 'American English'. You
>really should have stuck with the original

Why? England certainly didn't, you parochial buffoon.


--
It's times like these which make me glad my bank is Dial-a-Mattress

On Mon, 18 May 2009 15:14:57 -0500,
(Matthew Russotto) wrote in misc.transport.road:

>In article >,
>Eeyore > wrote:
>>
>>Your spellings are a sub-variant of English called 'American English'. You
>>really should have stuck with the original
>
>Why? England certainly didn't, you parochial buffoon.

Was Johnson even consistent in his spelling?

In article >, > wrote:
>
>I think the clue is in the name - "English". As in from "England". I daresay
>that most spanish speakers would consider standard spanish is the dialect
>spoken in madrid, not mexico city

You would, of course, be wrong.
--
It's times like these which make me glad my bank is Dial-a-Mattress

On Mon, 18 May 2009 15:31:38 -0500
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>
>In article >, > wrote:
>>
>>I think the clue is in the name - "English". As in from "England". I daresay
>>that most spanish speakers would consider standard spanish is the dialect
>>spoken in madrid, not mexico city
>
>You would, of course, be wrong.

I think not.

B2003