Miscellaneous desk
< September 7	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 8[edit]

Live-stream-initiated rescues[edit]

According to Natalie Compton, reporting for the Washington Post, a hiker in Katmai National Park and Preserve was rescued this week because live-cam viewers, hoping to get a glimpse of Katmai's brown bears, noted the hiker's distress. What are other examples of rescues that have been initiated by live stream viewers? Georgeliotswims (talk) 00:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who bears the brunt?[edit]

I am reading the Chicago Manual of Style in its entirety to better improve my understanding of editing, as one usually does. In my 16th edition for sub heading 2.53 fact-checking, it states that "... the author is finally responsible for the accuracy of a work" for books. Further, "most book publishers do not perform fact-checking in any systematic way or expect it of their manuscript editors unless specifically agreed upon". It makes sense. I was thinking for Wikipedia, it probably works similar. We have identifiers that let us check who put the information into an article, and if it is factually inaccurate, the editor who included the information bears the brunt of that inaccuracy.

However, if an article made it through one of our set standard reviews (new page review, articles for creation, peer review, good article review, featured article review, etc.) and we expect those articles to be checked by another/other editor(s) for accuracy, do said reviewers also bear the brunt of inaccuracy? Is there a difference in the veracity if the factual inaccuracy missed is intentionally or accidentally placed (of course, not dealing with the occasional grammar mistake, but for complete passages)? Are there any cases in Wikipedia's history that have precedent for such a situation, at least for the higher echelons of article-status? Adog (Talk・Cont) 14:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Errors such as "Manuel" of Style?) You can probably find some examples on Wikipediocracy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is so called reliable sources that bear the brunt. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The pedantic problem being that "to verify" means "to make true". So the way to verify it or make it true is by using proper sourcing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on that, to "verify" something in a WP article means to verify that the source says what the article says it does, not that the source is necessarily accurate. -- 136.54.106.120 (talk) 15:36, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify your expansion, if a source is shown to be inaccurate, then it isn't a reliable source and should not have been cited in the first place. "To verify" means "to be shown to be true", verifying something doesn't make it true, it is merely means that the truthfulness has been checked. If something isn't true in the first place, it can't be verified. Wikipedia doesn't rely on something being true via assertion only, it relies on something being verifiable in the sense that the truthfulness of it can be checked. --Jayron 32 16:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That does answer part of the question. Also, I guess part of the question was unclear. Let us say theoretically in the article Iron Gwazi (in a parallel dimension or timeline), there is a false fact in the passage that goes: Gwazi covered fifteen acres (6.07 ha) previously occupied by a merry-go-round. when the true statement is Gwazi covered eight acres (3.2 ha) previously occupied by [a] brewery. Let us also surmise that this is a crucial fact in the article, which is necessary to explain a lot of other facts that are supported accurately by references. The latter is supported by a reference, while the former is an utter falsehood that was either intentionally or accidentally put into the article by a random editor. Obviously, the editor who included that falsehood is to bear the brunt of that inaccuracy when it is found. However, Iron Gwazi (in this timeline also) made it through new page review, articles for creation, peer review, good article review, and featured article review, without anyone spotting that error. Do those reviewers also bear the brunt of that falsehood not being found because the quality/source-to-text/accuracy is then compromised?

Addendum, if there are multiple so-called "authors" to a Wikipedia page and this happens, do your "co-authors" bear that burden like those in the academic field? Essentially this half-question involves the mindset is Wikipedia's review processes the same as the academic community when falsehoods are found in journal articles. Adog (Talk・Cont) 23:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a tool called WikiBlame that can be used to find who's to "blame" for a particular passage in an article. Editors who routinely add copyright violations, false, invalid, or vandalous information (etc.) may be banned from editing. They more often are banned for obvious reasons without needing WikiBlame, however. Wikipedia has a fundamental principle of "assume good faith" for editors who simply make mistakes, but obvious abuse is not tolerated. Keep in mind that WP is an "encyclopedia that anybody can edit" (unless they've been banned) -- not just scholars, academics, or "experts". -- 136.54.106.120 (talk) 00:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, remember that, unlike published journals, WP articles are never complete; they can be added to, changed, and corrected at will. There are varied extents for locking articles that are contentious or prone to continued vandalism, misinformation, etc. Articles have talk pages where discussions (often heated) are made regarding uncertainties or potentially controversial edits. Ultimately "who bears the brunt" is the Wikimedia Foundation which gets sued on occasion -- which explains why they are very particular regarding copyright violations and biographies of living persons. -- 136.54.106.120 (talk) 01:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally worth mentioning is that WP articles do not have authors, only editors. Of course, articles are originally created by someone, usually in user's draft space, but once it is moved to article mainspace, it's fair game for others to edit. 136.54.106.120 (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that "bears the brunt" is an unfortunate phrase to use in this discussion. All good faith editors strive for accuracy in summarizing reliable sources, and collaborative editing has been shown to greatly assist this process. Being human, we all make errors with greater or lesser frequency. When errors are detected, whether it is a source used that ends up being judged as unreliable, or a failure to accurately summarize the source, the correct course of action is to correct the error, learn from what went wrong, and move on. Trying to decide who "bears the brunt" is not an exercise we should engage in when evaluating the work of generally competent editors acting in good faith. Of course, we also need to deal with hoaxers, axe grinders, cranks, POV pushers and those who lack basic competency. Such people are restricted, blocked or banned not to make them "bear the brunt", but to protect the encyclopedia. Here's an example: I wrote most of an article, Harry Yount, which is currently a Good article. I was unaware that there were two Union Army generals during the US Civil War named "John Phelps", namely John W. Phelps and John S. Phelps. I inadvertently linked to the wrong General Phelps, and the article passed a GA review in 2013 without the error being detected. It was not until 2022 that another editor detected the error, which I promptly corrected. So, should I "bear the brunt" and what exactly does "brunt" mean in this context? Cullen328 (talk) 04:32, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will agree on the wording. I was characteristically leaning towards an example about an editor caught in the intentional act, with good-standing in the community; though, I was also inquiring on good-faith accidents as well. Maybe bearing "responsibility" is a better word for it, as we have all have some sort of editorial reputation to create and uphold for article creation and moderation, and in the spirit of AGF (if that makes sense; such as a newspaper writer having to create factual reports and uphold that accuracy for their readers, otherwise, misreporting might damage their reputation or status as a writer). I think you got to some of what I was putting down, with those who are needed to be dealt with-part. I, too, have made several mistakes in wording or phrasing at my FAC and GAN reviews before. We are humans after all! As an example of this "bearing", I feel a hit in personal responsibility/editorial status when I overlook or misinterpret something by accident. "Brunt", for this context, I will surmise as "responsibility", or a sense thereof. Whether we assign responsibility I guess is another question in itself (depending on a situation, whether that assignment is personal responsibility or community-implied).

Essentially, at worst for an editor who is good-standing and made intentional factual errors, is there an equivalent of the Schön scandal and what was the outcome for reviewers/editors. At best for an editor who is good-standing and made accidental errors, what are the unintended consequence to our mistakes in the short- or long-term (e.g. how our fellow editors view our work in the future or how we personally feel about a past-mistake or how readers interpret content)? Also for the replies above, I did not know about "WikiBlame" or "Wikipediocracy", those are interesting. Adog (Talk・Cont) 13:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part, an editor's reputation is whatever others perceive it to be. Editors have talk pages where one can leave questions or comments about their editing (see Wikilove and Wikiquette for example). They also have a userpage where they can expound about how wonderful they are. There are occasions where an editor's edit history is scrutinized (e.g. sockpuppetry), but there is no periodic review or ranking system (that I'm aware of). Applying to become an administrator however, does involve some analysis of the candidate's edit history. There are noticeboards where disruptive or suspicious activity can be reported. There have been some notorious WP hoaxers, ~~but I don't have any examples at hand.~~ e.g. Jar'Edo Wens hoax. -- 136.54.106.120 (talk) 15:20, 9 September 2023 (UTC) . . . See also: WP:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Bicholim conflict -- nominated for featured article status!^[1] 16:32, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great find! Looked further at Wikipedia talk:Good articles/Archive 14#Problems with criteria and review procedure, which had an interesting outcome at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles for GAN's and reviewers. I wish there was a thank you button for IP's. 🖱️ *click* [thanks] :P Adog (Talk・Cont) 17:56, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brunt might be borne by Ichabod Crane. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seat belts for routine vehicle operation[edit]

A playground near my home has a half-bucket swingset seat for little children, as if you cut the pictured swing in half: the child sits on the back half, and a little chain fastens in place of the front half to keep the child in.

According to the introduction to Bucket seat, they were employed in many German military vehicles during the Second World War, because the vehicles had no doors, and bucket seats were needed to prevent the occupants flying out of the vehicle during normal operation. Whether in this context, or in others where occupants might be thrown by normal operation, is there any evidence of anyone (manufacturer or aftermarket technicians) ever installing a belt device to restrain occupants, even something as simple as my swing chain example? After discussing a belt in an aircraft, Seat belt#History begins in the 1950s with the history of a retractable belt, whose designer (a neurologist) was seemingly concerned with victims of accidents, not doorless vehicles whose occupants might bounce out. Apparently "he investigated the early seat belts with primitive designs", so I take it that there were others before him, and probably he wasn't aware of the aviator from a century before. Nyttend (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly, Edward J. Claghorn redirects to Seat belt, but is mentioned nowhere in the article. Nevertheless, according to ThoughtCo.: The first U.S. patent for automobile seat belts was issued to Edward J. Claghorn of New York, New York on February 10, 1885.^[2] -- 136.54.106.120 (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That article mentions the patent description which includes that it is designed for securing the person to a fixed object -- which implies it's intended to keep folks from falling out. 136.54.106.120 (talk) 01:36, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking in Newspapers.com (pay site) for "seat belts", I'm seeing references as far back as the 1860s, for seat belts in boats. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of aviation, this article credits Benjamin Foulois with inventing the first aircraft safety belt in 1911. The same source says that the US Air Commerce Act of 1926 required “safety belts or equivalent apparatus for pilots and passengers in open-cockpit airplanes carrying passengers for hire or reward.” This forum thread says that a lap belt was sometimes used in the Blériot XI aircraft in 1911 and had come into general use for "scout" (i.e. fighter) aircraft by 1915 (better source needed). Alansplodge (talk) 12:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Our seat belt article credits Sir George Cayley (1773-1857) with inventing the seat belt for his experimental gliders in the 1840s and 1850s. The first pilots of these contraptions were small boys including his own grandson, so I expect he was rather keen that they didn't fall out. Alansplodge (talk) 13:07, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]