Options
Wikipedia rejected my edits on the U.S. Dollar coin page.
CaptHenway
Posts: 34,233 ✭✭✭✭✭
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
Professional Numismatist, Retired. 55 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and ANA Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner of the PNG's 2026 Robert Friedberg Award for "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," Available now from Whitman or Amazon.
4
Comments
Referring to Wiki is fact checking for the lazy
You tried to help Tom.
m
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......
Tom,
If you click on the "Edit History" tab
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dollar_coin_(United_States)&action=history
it says:
"18:23, 28 July 2020 Orangemike talk contribs 53,870 bytes -223 please don't make edits like this without providing sources (not "documentation"; actual published reliable sources) "
You can bring back ("revert") your changes and add the sources.
This wikipedia editor does not know your level of expertise, and really all he has to go by is "CaptHenway".
It is a collaborative editing process, so you need to persuade any competing editors that your info is solid.
You can view a side by side version of your changes by clicking on "prev":
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dollar_coin_(United_States)&diff=974639657&oldid=970011894
It seems like mainly the Line 54 change could be helped by adding a source.
The other things are based on factual mintage and fixing grammar.
I should be able to help get the edit done.
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
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......
That may be more an indictment of those individuals than of Wiki. IMHO, of course.
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!
Fun story from college! A big group from my class was hanging out in the Aero lounge working on an assignment (yeah, we were cool). At some point, someone brought up something random (completely unrelated to our work) which led to a little debate between two classmates. Eventually, this exchange happened:
Classmate 1: "Well ____ is true"
Classmate 2: "Oh yeah? Well that's not what Wikipedia says!"
(30 second pause, classmate 1 on laptop)
Classmate 1: "Yes it is!"
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.
Some wikipedia editors reject any updates to their content based only on your indirect implication that they got it wrong the first time. Its ego driven and causes it to not be as good as it could be.
My Masters degree strictly prohibited using wikipedia as a source, but it does have good references for further research at the bottom of the articles.
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.
From another thread:
Governments can print currency. Only the people can print faith in it — and they’re running low on ink.
it took me a while but i finally found the flaw in your plan. you didn't sign your work TD NOTY & SOB!!
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
So, basically:
I limit my Wiki searches to National League MVPs by year and stuff like that.
I also love some of the hacks. This Charlie Sheen entry almost caused me to break a couple of ribs
m
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......
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.
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
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.
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
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.
Successful transactions with : MICHAELDIXON, Manorcourtman, Bochiman, bolivarshagnasty, AUandAG, onlyroosies, chumley, Weiss, jdimmick, BAJJERFAN, gene1978, TJM965, Smittys, GRANDAM, JTHawaii, mainejoe, softparade, derryb, Ricko
Bad transactions with : nobody to date
.
Believe nothing you hear and only half of what you ready. Only believe 100% of what you witness.
Wow! What happened with my previous post? Never saw that before. Talk about a glitch! I deleted it. Weird.
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.
Wiki = Breen? 🤔
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.
Wiki better than snopes....
Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value. Zero. Voltaire. Ebay coinbowlllc