Goodbye Broadcasting Magazine

[K.M. Richards]

I’ve never used wikipedia as a source for anything. It’s about as reliable as something written on a bathroom wall.

Oh, it has its uses. For example, if I can't remember when a specific change happened at a station, Wikipedia will give me a good starting point as to what year to search under at David's site.

 

[davideduardo]

Oh, it has its uses. For example, if I can't remember when a specific change happened at a station, Wikipedia will give me a good starting point as to what year to search under at David's site.

Historically, the site's articles are pretty good for things prior to the post-WW II era. After that, political tones are added liberally to such articles, based on the writer's perspective and position on the liberal-to-conservative spectrum. And that applies to both American politics and that of nearly any other nation.

 

[K.M. Richards]

Historically, the site's articles are pretty good for things prior to the post-WW II era. After that, political tones are added liberally to such articles, based on the writer's perspective and position on the liberal-to-conservative spectrum. And that applies to both American politics and that of nearly any other nation.

This is why I believe Wikipedia was pretty much doomed from the start. "Anyone can edit"??? I saw the potential for abuse right away, and sure enough, articles are not written in the neutral style I expect from reference material. As I said, I find myself fact-checking things there a lot.

I once had to edit the page for a station I was consulting because someone actually edited it to add "They need to change the format back because I hate the new one" at the end of the last paragraph. It was then that I started to form my belief that Wikipedia will never be useful until they put in a moderator/approval process for edits.

 

[Kelly A]

This is why I believe Wikipedia was pretty much doomed from the start. "Anyone can edit"???

I know, right? That includes some folks around here like VChimp, who admittedly 'edits' content that he has zero personal knowledge of. And I'm not ripping on Chimp, because there are other folks on this very site altering/editing content on Wikipedia, and it isn't just about radio-related content.

I saw the potential for abuse right away, and sure enough, articles are not written in the neutral style I expect from reference material. As I said, I find myself fact-checking things there a lot.

Wikipedia was the old version of how students were caught using AI for school reports. Both are well known for a similar form of 'hallucination'.

I once had to edit the page for a station I was consulting because someone actually edited it to add "They need to change the format back because I hate the new one" at the end of the last paragraph. It was then that I started to form my belief that Wikipedia will never be useful until they put in a moderator/approval process for edits.

My money was from someone who frequents this site.

 

[radiofan2023]

Wikipedia was the old version of how students were caught using AI for school reports. Both are well known for a similar form of 'hallucination'.

This is exactly why we couldn’t use Wikipedia as a source when writing papers when I was in high school and college.

 

[CTListener]

This is exactly why we couldn’t use Wikipedia as a source when writing papers when I was in high school and college.

And why my last copy desk boss came down hard on me for merely mentioning that I'd referred to Wikipedia as a starting point for checking the accuracy of a fact in a story. He made it clear that I was NEVER to so much as open Wikipedia in my browser.

 

[yeoldeschool]

You paint Wikipedia as being generally accurate. It is not. In the area of radio stations, my calculation is that about 75% or a bit over are inaccurate, missing details at best and just wrong at worst.

I only said that its design was unflawed and that it properly facilitated [the enforcement of] citing reliable sources for all statements of fact, giving it the ability to function as an invaluable source for verifiable knowledge. People who don't follow those standards, or vandals who even abuse the openness of the editing system to add things like "they need to change the format back because I hate the new one," don't disqualify Wikipedia of its value or viability according to my way of thinking. Those are consequences of Wikipedia existing outside the metaphorical gated community of private encyclopediadom -- i.e., expect to see occasional graffiti along the roads you drive, and occasional cases of poor pothole maintenance.

My defense of Wikipedia was simply a glass half full one: that something with imperfections shouldn't be abandoned and thrown out with the bathwater so hastily and scornfully, but rather, that those imperfections should be seen as opportunities for improvement by you, the educated and factually-minded reader, when you encounter them. Wikipedia's design often yields excellence article quality-wise in cases of sufficiently popular articles where enough eyeballs are constantly reading and tweaking their text, including adding/improving citations and flagging/removing unverifiable claims. The fact outdated information appears in seldom-visited articles on topics like AM and FM radio stations -- which everyone here regularly acknowledges are dying out of the public's consciousness -- isn't a deign flaw to me, but a symptom that the site needs more people to care for it. If you're an expert in a subject whose articles are inordinately outdated, be the guy whose edits right that wrong. To do otherwise is to cause a kind of reverse tragedy of the commons.

As far as the biases many of the site's articles suffer, well, that's an admitted dilemma. So I'll just direct you to Scott Beach's Religion & Politics as my official take on it. With some things in life, one's mental threshing combine just needs to be engaged at all times. You can't even trust mainstream publications and media for coverage of subjects like those most of the time anymore.

Anyway, I just wanted to defend the site because I believe it has more value, and does more good, than harm. No privately-edited encyclopedia would ever offer even 1/5 of the article subjects Wikipedia does, especially at the complexity of detail it frequently rises to. It would be a real loss if it ever folded up because of this fad of deriding it that I see in so many places today finally driving it out of fashion, and ultimately existence.

If this makes me an annoying optimist, I'll live with the label.

 

[yeoldeschool]

This is exactly why we couldn’t use Wikipedia as a source when writing papers when I was in high school and college.

If schools really wanted to educate and improve the minds of kids, they would encourage them to include Wikipedia as one of their sources, and then demand, for each Wikipedia lead, that they "show their work" in following Wikipedia's own citations to their origins, and fact-checking or evaluating the merits of those. This way, you would not only be exercising their skills in gathering information from reliable sources, but in judging other people's judgements of what's reliable. Kind of important in a society that wants to preserve a functional democracy, and would probably pay off in the end by cutting the audience sizes for a lot of Coast to Coast AM style talk shows on radio.

 

[radiofan2023]

If schools really wanted to educate and improve the minds of kids, they would encourage them to include Wikipedia as one of their sources, and then demand, for each Wikipedia lead, that they "show their work" in following Wikipedia's own citations to their origins, and fact-checking or evaluating the merits of those. This way, you would not only be exercising their skills in gathering information from reliable sources, but in judging other people's judgements of what's reliable. Kind of important in a society that wants to preserve a functional democracy, and would probably pay off in the end by cutting the audience sizes for a lot of Coast to Coast AM style talk shows on radio.

Coast to Coast AM sucks but the solution is better science education, not teaching students to rely on a website that anyone can post anything on whenever they want. That’s just wasting their time.

 

[davideduardo]

If this makes me an annoying optimist, I'll live with the label.

What has annoyed me to no end is the fact that the genius crowd that writes for Wikipedia tends to ignore other sources of historical and factual information.

Specifically, there is any number of web services about radio that have no article on Wikipedia despite being in existence for several decades. Start with "radiodiscussions" (this group) and go down the line to my own WorldRadioHistory with is now over 22 years old and has registered close to 100 million page views in the last 10 years.

In other words, sources that can either verify or, in the majority of cases regarding radio, disprove Wikipedia have no article at all!

 

[TheBigA]

Specifically, there is any number of web services about radio that have no article on Wikipedia despite being in existence for several decades.

Wikipedia is user generated content. The users create the articles. I've started several. Then watched as others rewrote them.

So if you or Lance or anybody wants to start a page on Radio Discussions or anything else, just do it. Don't wait for someone else.

 

[davideduardo]

Wikipedia is user generated content. The users create the articles. I've started several. Then watched as others rewrote them.

So if you or Lance or anybody wants to start a page on Radio Discussions or anything else, just do it. Don't wait for someone else.

And therein lies the problem. If I write about myself or my website, I am totally impeded from being impartial by ego and self-interests. So is nearly every other human being.

 

[TheBigA]

And therein lies the problem. If I write about myself or my website, I am totally impeded from being impartial by ego and self-interests. So is nearly every other human being.

That's what I thought. Then someone else came in and changed my self interest to their self interest. That's how it works.

If you're too self serving, one of their editors will tell you so. Or they'll just delete your page.

You have to cite and link references to confirm your entry. If not, they'll tell you about it.

 

[vchimpanzee]

I once had to edit the page for a station I was consulting because someone actually edited it to add "They need to change the format back because I hate the new one" at the end of the last paragraph. It was then that I started to form my belief that Wikipedia will never be useful until they put in a moderator/approval process for edits.

Anyone can be a moderator. Many of the edits like that are fixed quickly. Things are different than they used to be.

 

[kwthom]

So if you or Lance or anybody wants to start a page on Radio Discussions or anything else, just do it. Don't wait for someone else.

It would definitely need to be created in the third person. David simply needs to begin an entry about the WorldRadioHistory, with some introductory material, an outline of what the scope of the full Wikipedia entry should be, and see if it lives.

Don't create the whole complete article in one swoop. Fill it in over a period of time...that would probably get things rolling.

 

[vchimpanzee]

It would definitely need to be created in the third person. David simply needs to begin an entry about the WorldRadioHistory, with some introductory material, an outline of what the scope of the full Wikipedia entry should be, and see if it lives.

Don't create the whole complete article in one swoop. Fill it in over a period of time...that would probably get things rolling.

To create a new article one must find at least three independent sources that cover the topic in detail AND are regarded as reliable by Wikipedia.

 

[kwthom]

To create a new article one must find at least three independent sources that cover the topic in detail AND are regarded as reliable by Wikipedia.

Well...looks like that's not entirely accurate:

World Radio History – ויקיפדיה

he.wikipedia.org

Yep, Hebrew.

I'll exit this part of this tangent in this thread now...

 

[vchimpanzee]

Well...looks like that's not entirely accurate:

World Radio History – ויקיפדיה

he.wikipedia.org

Yep, Hebrew.

I'll exit this part of this tangent in this thread now...

What other languages do is their own business, but English Wikipedia is well patrolled these days.

 

[Rollo-Smokes]

I'll just say that as someone who infrequently edits on Wikipedia and have for over 15 years, I try to never alter an article to either clarify or add new information without a source. And when it comes to broadcasting-related entries, World Radio History is an invaluable source of factual material. (Thank you, @DavidEduardo!) I also maintain a subscription to newspapers(dot)com, and use that for citations as well.

In my opinion, the biggest issue over there are the know-it-all editors and and admins who have a "my way or the highway" mentality, and those who are all-inclusionists (i.e. those who feel ever minute detail of a station's backstory should be included in the article, even when it has a minimal connection, or no connection at all, to the subject). This leads to constant and frivolous editing wars and users being suspended or, in some cases, banned outright even when they are in the right (such as I was under my original user name).

But I agree with someone who earlier posted that instead of discouraging its use in school research, it should be encouraged–so as long as it is stressed that Wikipedia is only a gateway to broader fact-checking and not the ultimate last word.

 

[vchimpanzee]

I also maintain a subscription to newspapers(dot)com, and use that for citations as well.

Is yours part of being a Wikipedia editor? That's where I get mine. It's free.

In my opinion, the biggest issue over there are the know-it-all editors and and admins who have a "my way or the highway" mentality, and those who are all-inclusionists (i.e. those who feel ever minute detail of a station's backstory should be included in the article, even when it has a minimal connection, or no connection at all, to the subject). This leads to constant and frivolous editing wars and users being suspended or, in some cases, banned outright even when they are in the right (such as I was under my original user name).

I have a tendency to include too much. The good news is that at least puts the information in the history even if someone removes it later.

But I agree with someone who earlier posted that instead of discouraging its use in school research, it should be encouraged–so as long as it is stressed that Wikipedia is only a gateway to broader fact-checking and not the ultimate last word.

If you can access the references, that is a good idea.