Wikipedia - Waterloo International

[davews]

Not sure if there are any Wikipedia editors here. On wiki there are currently two articles for Waterloo, a main one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Waterloo_station and a separate one for the former international part https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterloo_International_railway_station

I propose that the page Waterloo International railway station should be merged into this article due to it technically being part of the same railway station. The content of the international terminal can be put into its relevant section on this article. No need for a seperate one. Slender

A proposal has been made to merge these. Nothing wrong in principle, but somebody decided to jump the can and do it anyway with a redirect page meaning all the old content was simply lost. Quite a lot of work is involved in doing the merge properly, and as usual with WP some are saying a lot of the content is 'unreferenced'.

It might help if some from here can comment on the proposal at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:London_Waterloo_station (section at the bottom).

 

[steamybrian]

I am one of the sub- editors of Wikipedia and am aware that the combining of the two articles have been under discussion for sometime.
I have not studied the combined article so was unaware of the content or what information was lost. If you can give me examples then I will investigate. As a sub-editor I can make small alterations but even these can be over-ruled by the editors particularly if the source of the information is not given.
Wikipedia is an ongoing encyclopedia with "work in progress" . Trying to not only keep up to date with information but adding historical information from reliable sources. Mistakes have previously been made by copying something from a book only to find that book was wrong or it was misprinted/misquoted.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

As a general comment, most Rail Enthusiasts are very knowledgeable about their subject but Wikipedia editors can be a different breed!

 

[davews]

As I said, the current discussion is on the talk page of the main Waterloo article - I thought these sort of things normally had a separate discussion page elsewhere. You will see that one editor, Ritchie333 claims there is a lot of unreferenced stuff in the International article, strange since the page has been there for many years and nobody has flagged anything as such yet...
Steambrian, if you can have a quick look and maybe comment there it would be good. But as you say we are always up against a brick wall when trying to get our views heard on that platform, I have been through it as well at various times.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

I often get Wikipedia as the top result and find many errors, even if referenced, sometimes the words even become accepted as truth by "reliable sources" to be later referenced on Wikipedia.
The internet is a much smaller place than what it was, the Wikipedia version is now seen as the only relevant and truthful version, and anyone can put anything down. I once corrected an article by tagging and then deleting a false statement and it was back up again later, and more on other pages so I gave up.

If the Wikipedia page is messed on on Waterloo, it's because the whole thing is biased and corrupted.
Forget about it, it will never be perfect, and if the article does get to get level, it will be rewritten by those wanting to edit top rated articles.

 

[Kite159]

Wikipedia editors, the same who didn't believe the stories when the 332s were being scrapped when the information came from one of the Railway magazine editors on Twitter and had to wait until it got published?

 

[Deafdoggie]

Alan Davies once famously corrected an error on his Wikipedia page, but it got rejected as he wasn't allowed to amend his own details! He then just got friends to slowly alter things instead and now there isn't a true word on there about him!
Dave Gorman does a whole routine about the inaccuracies on his Wikipedia page, and how he can't get it corrected. There was an incorrect fact, a newspaper picked up on it, he removed the fact, Wikipedia replaced it, citing the newspaper as the source!
I know the page of my employer is wrong, but we're not allowed to correct it. Wikipedia don't care their information is wrong, their fact checking is below that of a red-top journalist.
Basically, you're more likely to find an accurate account in The Sun than on Wikipedia. It doesn't matter what Wikipedia says, it's most likely wrong.
If you're after factual accounts and truth, you're better looking elsewhere.

 

[HarryL]

Wikipedia editors, the same who didn't believe the stories when the 332s were being scrapped when the information came from one of the Railway magazine editors on Twitter and had to wait until it got published?

That makes sense to be fair, Twitter isn't a very credible source no matter who it is so they are just upholding the standards in that regard. If they allowed a tweet to be used as a source in this context, it'd open up the floodgates of any old tweet being able to be used as a source from people claiming to be experts in any old thing.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

The London Waterloo articles look to be separate again, not that I really understand how it's a separate station. If Wikipedia cared about consistency it should have separate articles for Sunderland, one for national rail and one for metro.

The following Wikipedia link example is the to my favourite train class, the Pacer.
If say an Australian were to read this, would they know if the "Class 144e" was still running or not?
This article is typical of many, loads of citations but very little of the information is in date.
Also the whole article is clumsy, with replacement D-Trains mentioned as an apparent Pacer replacement for no reason. The claim that the trains are uncomfortable is also unreferenced (personally I thought they had awesome suspension and less thudding at speed).
It doesn't mention any heritage line in particular as having them so no one knows where they are except at the National Rail Museum, I went there two weeks ago and saw no Pacer anywhere.

Pacer (British Rail) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I don't know much about Waterloo, but if Wikipedia can't write a decent article for the important things, what's the point of it?

 

[ABB125]

the information came from one of the Railway magazine editors on Twitter and had to wait until it got published

Whilst I agree that it seems silly, I do think that not allowing Twitter to be used as a source is a good idea, given the utter nonsense found on that platform. It's just annoying when something accurate is posted, and you can't use it!

 

[steamybrian]

As I said, the current discussion is on the talk page of the main Waterloo article - I thought these sort of things normally had a separate discussion page elsewhere. You will see that one editor, Ritchie333 claims there is a lot of unreferenced stuff in the International article, strange since the page has been there for many years and nobody has flagged anything as such yet...
Steambrian, if you can have a quick look and maybe comment there it would be good. But as you say we are always up against a brick wall when trying to get our views heard on that platform, I have been through it as well at various times.

I will read through the article on Waterloo International.
Occasionally I have hit a brick wall against the editors. One occasion was an incorrect closure date of a branch line which I amended because I had actually travelled over it on its last day, got the ticket and recorded it in my diary. I was over-ruled by the editor because he quoted the date which was printed (wrongly) in a newspaper. It took further research and another source to prove my point.
Like a lot of people rather than just sitting on the fence complaining I am contributing.

 

[yorkie]

That makes sense to be fair, Twitter isn't a very credible source..

Wikipedia articles are not a primary source; Wikipedia requires its authors to provide sources, just as we do

I would also suggest that people should look for a primary source and only use Wikipedia as a source if no other source is available, in which case the information should not be assumed to be correct.

 

[AlbertBeale]

I occasionally use Wikipedia without checking back to original sources for something slightly technical like, say, confirming the difference between two Cyrillic alphabets, or checking some international dialling codes, or the origin of the name of a maths theorem [to give some actual examples], if I don't have a better source to hand physically and I can't immediately think of a more directly relevant website to go to. (But even in these examples, I'd be wary of possible "political" reasons why the information might be presented in a way that wasn't "neutral", ie accurate.)

But for more serious or contentious research, I don't find it safely reliable. On occasions when there's an article about something of which I have direct personal knowledge, there are often errors. But of course, since what's in my memory isn't a "published source" that can be referenced then I can't do anything about it. (And why would I bother - since someone can put the wrong information back again afterwards.)

It's a nice idea, and can be a starting point for some research; but it's a shame if people naively use it as their main source for anything important.

 

[swt_passenger]

I could understand the HEx 332 “problems” as explained here by someone at the time, people were trying to make it a detailed “day to day diary“ of the 332 disposals. All that’s actually needed is the summary you find there now.
.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

There’s an awful lot to be said about Waterloo International; the first idea of a terminal being White City, the plan to operate Waterloo along with Kings Cross, the fact the roof was built high enough to house a greenhouse above the tracks. I think it should stay separate.

 

[pdeaves]

I think it should stay separate.

Up to the point where it was recently-ish merged with the main station. Then specific 'International' history should stop.

 

[island]

Someone reversed the merge same-day and it hasn't been touched since.

I'm an admin of Wikipedia. That doesn't give me veto rights or any particular special editing privileges on articles, just means I can lock articles for editing, delete/undelete, and ban people

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Someone reversed the merge same-day and it hasn't been touched since.

I'm an admin of Wikipedia. That doesn't give me veto rights or any particular special editing privileges on articles, just means I can lock articles for editing, delete/undelete, and ban people

Surely that is a privilege, what's to stop admins from editing the page for "Derry" and renaming it with the actual legal name for the city "Londonderry" and then locking it?

 

[island]

Surely that is a privilege, what's to stop admins from editing the page for "Derry" and renaming it with the actual legal name for the city "Londonderry" and then locking it?

Well, I have the technical ability to do that (but being Irish, I won't). However, another admin would no doubt change it back in short order, and if I persisted, I could in theory have my admin status revoked for admin warring.

(Wikipedia has some time ago arrived at a compromise to call the city Derry and the county Londonderry.)

 

[davews]

Someone reversed the merge same-day and it hasn't been touched since.

That was me.... as far as I could see nothing had been merged with the main article at that time, it was a simple redirect with all the international content lost. And although a couple of chaps said they would do some updates to the contents of the main article to expand the international bits that hasn't happened either.

 

[island]

That was me.... as far as I could see nothing had been merged with the main article at that time, it was a simple redirect with all the international content lost. And although a couple of chaps said they would do some updates to the contents of the main article to expand the international bits that hasn't happened either.

Yeah, Wikipedia is big on creating work for someone else to do, less so on actually doing it.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Just look at the in the news discussion to see how heightened the views that some editors seem to have of themselves are. Quite a few of them seem to think other editors are beneath them and they're right, you're wrong. I wanted to get into it once but got put off by their attitude.

 

[prod_pep]

The railways seem to be a subject on Wikipedia where glaring errors go uncorrected for long periods. I edit the odd thing now and again but it's futile at times.

Sorry to go a bit off-subject but one that annoys me in particular is the ghastly and plain wrong 'Lea Valley Lines' article. For a start, there is only one Lea Valley Line and that is the route via Tottenham Hale and Brimsdown. It is not a 'network of routes' as suggested by the article and the Chingford, Enfield Town and Cheshunt via Southbury routes are not 'Lea Valley Lines'.

 

[Ediswan]

Sorry to go a bit off-subject but one that annoys me in particular is the ghastly and plain wrong 'Lea Valley Lines' article. For a start, there is only one Lea Valley Line and that is the route via Tottenham Hale and Brimsdown. It is not a 'network of routes' as suggested by the article and the Chingford, Enfield Town and Cheshunt via Southbury routes are not 'Lea Valley Lines'.

You can understand people wanting to include Enfield Town and Southbury because they are in the Lea Valley. Chingford is very definitely not in the valley.