<< <i>Thelawnet, The quality of numismatic articles up on Wikipedia is just plain crap,as even some authors won't get the titling of articles right. >>
Not sure what you are specifically referring to, but if the titling is wrong, change it.
Wikipedia is in the top 10 websites in the world, and has a much wider reach than coinfactswiki.
Ultimately the quality of articles is a function of the number of knowledgable editors, something wikipedia is more likely to have or to acquire in the future.
I know you got banned from Wikipedia, but I wouldn't let that bother you, if you stick to numismatics things shouldn't get too heated :-)
I read one Wikipedia article and found some errors, but I imagine not all writers are experts. It seems that old urban legends get rehashed. At least it's a starting place.
Patrick, There's too many wankers who think that they know how to write numismatic articles correctly,when in fact,they haven't a clue.
For example,I wrote the articles 'Coins of the South African Republic' & 'Coins of South Africa' prior to me being banned off Wikipedia.Along come some idiots who butchered 'Coins of South Africa' & merged the section about the pre-decimal coins of the Union of South Africa into an article that is stupidly titled 'Coins of the South African pound'.
That is why Wikipedia's coverage of numismatic articles are crap!
<< <i>Patrick, There's too many wankers who think that they know how to write numismatic articles correctly,when in fact,they haven't a clue.
For example,I wrote the articles 'Coins of the South African Republic' & 'Coins of South Africa' prior to me being banned off Wikipedia.Along come some idiots who butchered 'Coins of South Africa' & merged the section about the pre-decimal coins of the Union of South Africa into an article that is stupidly titled 'Coins of the South African pound'.
That is why Wikipedia's coverage of numismatic articles are crap! >>
I had a look at why those got merged, it seems there was some sort of housekeeping discussion about what these articles should be called, somebody compiled a list of articles, and nobody objected, so they got merged. Clearly if you had been there, you would have been able to point out that it was inappropriate and put a stop to it.
There is a lack of people with knowledge to cover the specialized areas - how many people know about say the French Indochina piastre? So if someone does something inappropriate then it has a high chance of going unchecked.
That said, the same issue exists with coinfacts, but more so. So I don't really see the point. You are much more likely to 'own' your article, but that's only because nobody else is contributing - or reading it even. If I type 'Indonesian rupiah' into Google, the first hit is the wikipedia article. Wikipedia has mega google-juice, and so the stuff will get read. And though I wrote most of that article, other people do make useful contributions. Is that going to happen on coinfacts? I think not (there isn't even an article).
It's a valid website for US coinage for sure, there are enough people with knowledge to create the pages. But for anything specialized? I don't think so.
I haven't had time to contribute anything. But just a general comment, not a slam against CFW as I think it has the potential to be a good resource. I think at this stage of Web 2.0 or whatever the VCs want to hype it as, any social site of this nature, a reference, has to have a solid foundation before going live in order to attract users. Meaning that it may have been a mistake for CFW to start with a clean slate. If folks see something already functional they can more easily see the long term use and viability of the service. Starting something this ambitious from scratch seems hopeless and I'm guessing that many don't want to feel as though they're the only person contributing. If there were starter pages in place for a variety of things folks would more likely tweak and make piecemeal additions, building the articles up in true wiki style. But again the clean slate approach just establishes too high a psychological barrier and asks for too much personal investment. For a near-comprehensive online reference to work it'll take a lot of man-hours doing grunt work before it's presentable.
BCNumismatics
Posts: 454
Comments
<< <i>How many of you have either written or started to write a proper article up on Coin Facts Wiki?
My first contribution can be found here.
Sorry,it is a banknote article,but as it is on a numismatic encyclopaedia,I've posted it here.
You can come & join up here.
Aidan. >>
Surely this stuff could all just go on wikipedia? In fact wikipedia has a very similar article.
The quality of numismatic articles up on Wikipedia is just plain crap,as even some authors won't get the titling of articles right.
The Coin Facts Wiki is actually associated with here anyway,as it has been backed by PCGS,as in the slabber.
Aidan.
<< <i>Thelawnet,
The quality of numismatic articles up on Wikipedia is just plain crap,as even some authors won't get the titling of articles right.
>>
Not sure what you are specifically referring to, but if the titling is wrong, change it.
Wikipedia is in the top 10 websites in the world, and has a much wider reach than coinfactswiki.
Ultimately the quality of articles is a function of the number of knowledgable editors, something wikipedia is more likely to have or to acquire in the future.
I know you got banned from Wikipedia, but I wouldn't let that bother you, if you stick to numismatics things shouldn't get too heated :-)
Obscurum per obscurius
There's too many wankers who think that they know how to write numismatic articles correctly,when in fact,they haven't a clue.
For example,I wrote the articles 'Coins of the South African Republic' & 'Coins of South Africa' prior to me being banned off Wikipedia.Along come some idiots who butchered 'Coins of South Africa' & merged the section about the pre-decimal coins of the Union of South Africa into an article that is stupidly titled 'Coins of the South African pound'.
That is why Wikipedia's coverage of numismatic articles are crap!
Aidan.
I really appreciate what you and other contributors have posted on the site. One question: How do you get to your pages from the Main Page?
President
PCGS CoinFacts - the Internet Encyclopedia of U.S. Coins
www.CoinFacts.com
<< <i>Patrick,
There's too many wankers who think that they know how to write numismatic articles correctly,when in fact,they haven't a clue.
For example,I wrote the articles 'Coins of the South African Republic' & 'Coins of South Africa' prior to me being banned off Wikipedia.Along come some idiots who butchered 'Coins of South Africa' & merged the section about the pre-decimal coins of the Union of South Africa into an article that is stupidly titled 'Coins of the South African pound'.
That is why Wikipedia's coverage of numismatic articles are crap!
>>
I had a look at why those got merged, it seems there was some sort of housekeeping discussion about what these articles should be called, somebody compiled a list of articles, and nobody objected, so they got merged. Clearly if you had been there, you would have been able to point out that it was inappropriate and put a stop to it.
There is a lack of people with knowledge to cover the specialized areas - how many people know about say the French Indochina piastre? So if someone does something inappropriate then it has a high chance of going unchecked.
That said, the same issue exists with coinfacts, but more so. So I don't really see the point. You are much more likely to 'own' your article, but that's only because nobody else is contributing - or reading it even. If I type 'Indonesian rupiah' into Google, the first hit is the wikipedia article. Wikipedia has mega google-juice, and so the stuff will get read. And though I wrote most of that article, other people do make useful contributions. Is that going to happen on coinfacts? I think not (there isn't even an article).
It's a valid website for US coinage for sure, there are enough people with knowledge to create the pages. But for anything specialized? I don't think so.
<< <i>Hi Aidan,
I really appreciate what you and other contributors have posted on the site. One question: How do you get to your pages from the Main Page? >>
Ron,
Your user name should appear at the top right-hand corner with a contributions link.
Aidan.
Just my 2c.
My wantlist & references
<< <i>Hi Aidan,
I really appreciate what you and other contributors have posted on the site. One question: How do you get to your pages from the Main Page? >>
Ron,
You've got to be logged in before you can see the 'Contributions' link in the top right hand corner.
Aidan.