Home U.S. Coin Forum

Wikipedia rejected my edits on the U.S. Dollar coin page.

CaptHenwayCaptHenway Posts: 32,227 ✭✭✭✭✭

Take a look at the booshwah on Wikipedia concerning early dollars (especially the Continental dollars) and the Seated dollars (introduced in 1836 to replace the Gobrecht dollars that preceded them!)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_coin_(United_States)

On July 28 I edited it in two places. I saved copies of the edits, here:

Today I checked back and the original, incorrect text has been restored. At least I tried to help them!

TD

Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.

Comments

  • 3stars3stars Posts: 2,291 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Previous transactions: Wondercoin, goldman86, dmarks, Type2
  • JimnightJimnight Posts: 10,846 ✭✭✭✭✭

    :/

  • JustacommemanJustacommeman Posts: 22,847 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @CoinJunkie said:

    @Justacommeman said:
    Referring to Wiki is fact checking for the lazy

    We're going to have to agree to disagree on that. I find it a valuable and handy first reference on virtually any subject imaginable. Like any other written text, it shouldn't be blindly accepted as gospel. In my experience, the amount of blatant and/or malicious misinformation is minimal. Typically a wealth of related source material for further study is referenced on any given subject, further making Wiki a useful jumping off point.

    I’ve had to many debates where people have thrown Wiki as their exhibit A so I guess we will agree to disagree

    m

    Walker Proof Digital Album
    Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
  • CoinJunkieCoinJunkie Posts: 8,772 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Justacommeman said:

    @CoinJunkie said:

    @Justacommeman said:
    Referring to Wiki is fact checking for the lazy

    We're going to have to agree to disagree on that. I find it a valuable and handy first reference on virtually any subject imaginable. Like any other written text, it shouldn't be blindly accepted as gospel. In my experience, the amount of blatant and/or malicious misinformation is minimal. Typically a wealth of related source material for further study is referenced on any given subject, further making Wiki a useful jumping off point.

    I’ve had to many debates where people have thrown Wiki as their exhibit A so I guess we will agree to disagree

    m

    That may be more an indictment of those individuals than of Wiki. IMHO, of course.

  • kazkaz Posts: 9,179 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Seated Liberty dollars were introduced in 1836 and were minted in lesser quantities than the sparsely minted Gobrecht dollar that preceded it.

    You'd think this would warrant editing!

  • cladkingcladking Posts: 28,668 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Wiki used to say clad coins weren't collectible! Of course there was no fixing it. They also say that only ramps could have been used to build pyramids. My theory is that everything in wiki is wrong but it it doesn't matter because wiki is for people who don't know anything about the subject so nobody knows it's wrong.

    B)

    Tempus fugit.
  • JBKJBK Posts: 15,676 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I see wikipedia as a starting point for light research on issues. I usually use it for noncontroversial subjects since I have seen some absurdly biased and inflammatory entries in some cases.

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 34,555 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 26, 2020 4:37PM

    @Justacommeman said:

    @CoinJunkie said:

    @Justacommeman said:
    Referring to Wiki is fact checking for the lazy

    We're going to have to agree to disagree on that. I find it a valuable and handy first reference on virtually any subject imaginable. Like any other written text, it shouldn't be blindly accepted as gospel. In my experience, the amount of blatant and/or malicious misinformation is minimal. Typically a wealth of related source material for further study is referenced on any given subject, further making Wiki a useful jumping off point.

    I’ve had to many debates where people have thrown Wiki as their exhibit A so I guess we will agree to disagree

    m

    Studies show it is as accurate as paper encyclopedias. It's not perfect, but it is fairly accurate.
    https://livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html

  • LanceNewmanOCCLanceNewmanOCC Posts: 19,999 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 26, 2020 6:24PM

    @CaptHenway said:
    TD

    it took me a while but i finally found the flaw in your plan. you didn't sign your work TD NOTY & SOB!!

    <--- look what's behind the mask! - cool link 1/NO ~ 2/NNP ~ 3/NNC ~ 4/CF ~ 5/PG ~ 6/Cert ~ 7/NGC 7a/NGC pop~ 8/NGCF ~ 9/HA archives ~ 10/PM ~ 11/NM ~ 12/ANACS cert ~ 13/ANACS pop - report fakes 1/ACEF ~ report fakes/thefts 1/NCIS - Numi-Classes SS ~ Bass ~ Transcribed Docs NNP - clashed coins - error training - V V mm styles -

  • CoinJunkieCoinJunkie Posts: 8,772 ✭✭✭✭✭

    FYI, here's a potentially interesting link on why Wiki edits may get reverted:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Why_did_you_revert_my_edit%3F

  • ZoinsZoins Posts: 34,288 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 26, 2020 7:50PM

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @Justacommeman said:

    @CoinJunkie said:

    @Justacommeman said:
    Referring to Wiki is fact checking for the lazy

    We're going to have to agree to disagree on that. I find it a valuable and handy first reference on virtually any subject imaginable. Like any other written text, it shouldn't be blindly accepted as gospel. In my experience, the amount of blatant and/or malicious misinformation is minimal. Typically a wealth of related source material for further study is referenced on any given subject, further making Wiki a useful jumping off point.

    I’ve had to many debates where people have thrown Wiki as their exhibit A so I guess we will agree to disagree

    m

    Studies show it is as accurate as paper encyclopedias. It's not perfect, but it is fairly accurate.
    https://livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html

    So, basically:

    • if you trust Wikipedia, this is good supporting evidence.
    • if you don't trust Wikipedia, you shouldn't trust other paper encyclopedias either.
  • cameonut2011cameonut2011 Posts: 10,169 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 26, 2020 7:24PM

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @Justacommeman said:

    @CoinJunkie said:

    @Justacommeman said:
    Referring to Wiki is fact checking for the lazy

    We're going to have to agree to disagree on that. I find it a valuable and handy first reference on virtually any subject imaginable. Like any other written text, it shouldn't be blindly accepted as gospel. In my experience, the amount of blatant and/or malicious misinformation is minimal. Typically a wealth of related source material for further study is referenced on any given subject, further making Wiki a useful jumping off point.

    I’ve had to many debates where people have thrown Wiki as their exhibit A so I guess we will agree to disagree

    m

    Studies show it is as accurate as paper encyclopedias. It's not perfect, but it is fairly accurate.
    https://livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html

    Maybe overall in general, but no study can control for every article. It only takes one botched article to mess you up and compromise your work. At least paper encyclopedias are tightly controlled. FWIW, none of my college or graduate classes allowed either. You should be using primary sources or as close as you can come.

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 34,555 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Zoins said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @Justacommeman said:

    @CoinJunkie said:

    @Justacommeman said:
    Referring to Wiki is fact checking for the lazy

    We're going to have to agree to disagree on that. I find it a valuable and handy first reference on virtually any subject imaginable. Like any other written text, it shouldn't be blindly accepted as gospel. In my experience, the amount of blatant and/or malicious misinformation is minimal. Typically a wealth of related source material for further study is referenced on any given subject, further making Wiki a useful jumping off point.

    I’ve had to many debates where people have thrown Wiki as their exhibit A so I guess we will agree to disagree

    m

    Studies show it is as accurate as paper encyclopedias. It's not perfect, but it is fairly accurate.
    https://livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html

    So, basically:

    • if you trust Wikipedia, this is good supporting evidence.
    • if you don't trust Wikipedia, you shouldn't trust other paper encyclopedias either.

    People should always read ANYTHING with a critical eye.

    In fact, we should be GLAD that Wikipedia rejected the edits as the Captain did NOT provide source material for his edits.

  • ZoinsZoins Posts: 34,288 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 27, 2020 6:04AM

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @Zoins said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @Justacommeman said:

    @CoinJunkie said:

    @Justacommeman said:
    Referring to Wiki is fact checking for the lazy

    We're going to have to agree to disagree on that. I find it a valuable and handy first reference on virtually any subject imaginable. Like any other written text, it shouldn't be blindly accepted as gospel. In my experience, the amount of blatant and/or malicious misinformation is minimal. Typically a wealth of related source material for further study is referenced on any given subject, further making Wiki a useful jumping off point.

    I’ve had to many debates where people have thrown Wiki as their exhibit A so I guess we will agree to disagree

    m

    Studies show it is as accurate as paper encyclopedias. It's not perfect, but it is fairly accurate.
    https://livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html

    So, basically:

    • if you trust Wikipedia, this is good supporting evidence.
    • if you don't trust Wikipedia, you shouldn't trust other paper encyclopedias either.

    People should always read ANYTHING with a critical eye.

    In fact, we should be GLAD that Wikipedia rejected the edits as the Captain did NOT provide source material for his edits.

    Agree Captain's edit should be rejected for a lack of references. Hopefully, @CaptHenway can update the article with proper references and have his edits survive.

    Good to know there's some protection against the following :)

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 34,555 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @cameonut2011 said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @Justacommeman said:

    @CoinJunkie said:

    @Justacommeman said:
    Referring to Wiki is fact checking for the lazy

    We're going to have to agree to disagree on that. I find it a valuable and handy first reference on virtually any subject imaginable. Like any other written text, it shouldn't be blindly accepted as gospel. In my experience, the amount of blatant and/or malicious misinformation is minimal. Typically a wealth of related source material for further study is referenced on any given subject, further making Wiki a useful jumping off point.

    I’ve had to many debates where people have thrown Wiki as their exhibit A so I guess we will agree to disagree

    m

    Maybe overall in general, but no study can control for every article. It only takes one botched article to mess you up and compromise your work. At least paper encyclopedias are tightly controlled. FWIW, none of my college or graduate classes allowed either. You should be using primary sources or as close as you can come.

    Paper encyclopedias - if they still exist - are not any more "tightly controlled". Wikipedia and Britannica both have editors that check and correct content. They are human. They are flawed.

    As to whether you should use Wikipedia as a source really depends on the context. I encourage my students to use wikipedia for chemical content because the data is 99% accurate. Should they write a term paper using NOTHING but Wikipedia? No. But I allow them to use wikipedia and internet references.

    I'd also point out that a few stuffy old academics refusing to allow students to use the internet as a resource is as much a function of the stodginess and inertia of academia rather than any real comment on accuracy.

    The extension of this line of reasoning is that you should never use any information found on THIS forum.

  • scubafuelscubafuel Posts: 1,868 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Just like in school, for Wikipedia it’s not enough to be be right, you also have to show your work.
    Wikipedia is not a source, it’s a synthesis of the linked sources at the bottom of each page.

  • rickoricko Posts: 98,724 ✭✭✭✭✭

    After I retired, I took several courses on international and domestic terrorism (2009-2010), to better understand the organizations and scope at the time. Wikipedia was not acceptable as an informational source for the papers. It may have changed by now...Cheers, RickO

  • ZoinsZoins Posts: 34,288 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 27, 2020 5:24AM

    @cameonut2011 said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @Justacommeman said:

    @CoinJunkie said:

    @Justacommeman said:
    Referring to Wiki is fact checking for the lazy

    We're going to have to agree to disagree on that. I find it a valuable and handy first reference on virtually any subject imaginable. Like any other written text, it shouldn't be blindly accepted as gospel. In my experience, the amount of blatant and/or malicious misinformation is minimal. Typically a wealth of related source material for further study is referenced on any given subject, further making Wiki a useful jumping off point.

    I’ve had to many debates where people have thrown Wiki as their exhibit A so I guess we will agree to disagree

    m

    Studies show it is as accurate as paper encyclopedias. It's not perfect, but it is fairly accurate.
    https://livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html

    Maybe overall in general, but no study can control for every article. It only takes one botched article to mess you up and compromise your work. At least paper encyclopedias are tightly controlled. FWIW, none of my college or graduate classes allowed either. You should be using primary sources or as close as you can come.

    It's easy to use encyclopedias and primary sources, simply use the encyclopedia and then go to the source referenced!

    An issue in the case of the edit here, there was no primary source that could be followed.

  • 1630Boston1630Boston Posts: 13,786 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Successful transactions with : MICHAELDIXON, Manorcourtman, Bochiman, bolivarshagnasty, AUandAG, onlyroosies, chumley, Weiss, jdimmick, BAJJERFAN, gene1978, TJM965, Smittys, GRANDAM, JTHawaii, mainejoe, softparade, derryb

    Bad transactions with : nobody to date

  • HydrantHydrant Posts: 7,773 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 27, 2020 9:37AM

    .

  • crazyhounddogcrazyhounddog Posts: 13,977 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Believe nothing you hear and only half of what you ready. Only believe 100% of what you witness.

    The bitterness of "Poor Quality" is remembered long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten.
  • HydrantHydrant Posts: 7,773 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Wow! What happened with my previous post? Never saw that before. Talk about a glitch! I deleted it. Weird.

  • CaptHenwayCaptHenway Posts: 32,227 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Well, I have gone back and tried to provide a source for one of my changes, but I cannot figure out how to insert a source reference as a footnote. No doubt it will get deleted again.

    Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
  • CoinJunkieCoinJunkie Posts: 8,772 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @CaptHenway said:
    Well, I have gone back and tried to provide a source for one of my changes, but I cannot figure out how to insert a source reference as a footnote. No doubt it will get deleted again.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTJlmBibZ20

  • BustDMsBustDMs Posts: 1,618 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Wiki = Breen? 🤔

    Q: When does a collector become a numismatist?



    A: The year they spend more on their library than their coin collection.



    A numismatist is judged more on the content of their library than the content of their cabinet.
  • privatecoinprivatecoin Posts: 3,425 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Wiki better than snopes....

    Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value. Zero. Voltaire. Ebay coinbowlllc

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file