Back in the early 2000s, I knew a coal engineer - someone with decades of experience working with coal plants and coal technology around the world - whose Wiki contributions about what was going on in the field of coal energy and scrubbing technology around the world were almost constantly being altered and/or completely replaced by a ze…
Back in the early 2000s, I knew a coal engineer - someone with decades of experience working with coal plants and coal technology around the world - whose Wiki contributions about what was going on in the field of coal energy and scrubbing technology around the world were almost constantly being altered and/or completely replaced by a zealous editor. After trying a few more times, the engineer finally gave up.
Let's face it, zealots have a lot of time on their hands and you can't possibly match that. I learned long ago to put no faith in WP. I'm sorry they burned you, but they've been burning subject matter experts for a long time. It's a loss, and the losses keep accruing.
It is very helpful to know this happens to others. There are overzealous editors who have armed themselves with every rule for their cause. And this does give incomplete information in front facing coverage.. Coal is a fine example. Thanks for understanding. It's a hard thing to explain.
Who was the "zealot" here? The coal engineer or the editor? And are you suggesting zealotry is necessarily accompanied by bad faith? Jesus Christ, I am told, was a rather obnoxious zealot. Got nailed to a cross for it, or so the fable goes. Most people seem to agree he was at most times acting in good faith.
And though your "coal engineer" may indeed be an "expert," might the coal engineer have had an agenda outside his professional expertise that he was "zealously" pursuing in tandem with his professional expertise? Perhaps the "zealous" editor was relying on coal engineering expertise from multiple reliable coal engineering sources to refute your single coal engineer's "expertise."
Indeed, how does one differentiate bad faith zealotry from good faith zealotry? Or, roughly translated for today's readers--bullshit and propaganda from demonstrable fact and reasoned argument.
The seeming Moral of this Most Modern Fable: "zealotry" and "expertise" seem to exist strategically and exclusively in both the eyes and minds of the beholder, who may be or may not be a "zealot," and who may be acting in good faith...or not.
Well, here is a funny one. I subscribe to a journal called "The Book Collector.' It's about rare books and book collecting. Ian Fleming founded it! When I tried to add that fact to his W. page the James Bond (experts/zealots,fans) said that was not important. So that's not exactly NPOV.
Eventually I was able to add that his extensive collection had been purchased by Lilly Library.
My feeling was that I offended Ian Fleming's "image" by adding he founded the Book Collector.
There are all sorts of reasons why an entry, even one as benign (and interesting) as this one, can encounter pushback at Wikipedia. If you're taking Wikipedia too seriously you're not using it in the spirit in which it ought to be used. With many grains of salted patience and studied indifference.
And I would hazard a guess the average Wikipedia author is not a zealous partisan of a cause or causes, but somebody who wishes to say to the world: look what I know and you don't. Sounds to me that you likely offended the Fleming Bond "purists." No room for rare book collecting in their Bond worldview. Somewhat ironic in that collecting rare books is a hobby Bond might have engaged in, if he weren't so busy making himself expert on rare vintages.
Also, I find this little Fleming nugget you've unearthed interesting insofar that it's personally germane---the Lilly Library was one of my primary study redoubts as an undergrad.
You are right. I usually add small things and am happy. The Twitter Files was an anomaly in my W. work..
But now I have your attention.... what Bond collected were books that "started something," --landmark texts in science, technology, literature, sports and social and political movements. The collection — most of which came from the 19th and 20th centuries — included the first manual of golf instruction, H.B. Farnie's "The Golfer's Manual"; a manual for building airplanes, "The Aero Manual"; and an 1848 German first edition of "Manifesto of the Communist Party" by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. etc.
I thought this was SO interesting, but W. eds at Ian Fleming didn't. I was, however, able to add a bit to the W. entry about The Book Collector.
I believe Fleming's Wikipedia entry is the longest I've seen---and skimmed. I've read shorter biographies. I now understand how you could be a bit sore over being rebuffed with you entry. I had forgotten that Fleming wrote Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang.
My personal favorite entry in that whole thing, for its sheer superfluousness:
"...His lifestyle at Eton brought him into conflict with his housemaster, E. V. Slater, who disapproved of Fleming's attitude, his hair oil, his ownership of a car and his relations with women."
Who hasn't had a run-in at one time with a Housemaster over their hair oil?
Back in the early 2000s, I knew a coal engineer - someone with decades of experience working with coal plants and coal technology around the world - whose Wiki contributions about what was going on in the field of coal energy and scrubbing technology around the world were almost constantly being altered and/or completely replaced by a zealous editor. After trying a few more times, the engineer finally gave up.
Let's face it, zealots have a lot of time on their hands and you can't possibly match that. I learned long ago to put no faith in WP. I'm sorry they burned you, but they've been burning subject matter experts for a long time. It's a loss, and the losses keep accruing.
It is very helpful to know this happens to others. There are overzealous editors who have armed themselves with every rule for their cause. And this does give incomplete information in front facing coverage.. Coal is a fine example. Thanks for understanding. It's a hard thing to explain.
Who was the "zealot" here? The coal engineer or the editor? And are you suggesting zealotry is necessarily accompanied by bad faith? Jesus Christ, I am told, was a rather obnoxious zealot. Got nailed to a cross for it, or so the fable goes. Most people seem to agree he was at most times acting in good faith.
And though your "coal engineer" may indeed be an "expert," might the coal engineer have had an agenda outside his professional expertise that he was "zealously" pursuing in tandem with his professional expertise? Perhaps the "zealous" editor was relying on coal engineering expertise from multiple reliable coal engineering sources to refute your single coal engineer's "expertise."
Indeed, how does one differentiate bad faith zealotry from good faith zealotry? Or, roughly translated for today's readers--bullshit and propaganda from demonstrable fact and reasoned argument.
The seeming Moral of this Most Modern Fable: "zealotry" and "expertise" seem to exist strategically and exclusively in both the eyes and minds of the beholder, who may be or may not be a "zealot," and who may be acting in good faith...or not.
Well, here is a funny one. I subscribe to a journal called "The Book Collector.' It's about rare books and book collecting. Ian Fleming founded it! When I tried to add that fact to his W. page the James Bond (experts/zealots,fans) said that was not important. So that's not exactly NPOV.
Eventually I was able to add that his extensive collection had been purchased by Lilly Library.
My feeling was that I offended Ian Fleming's "image" by adding he founded the Book Collector.
https://www.ianfleming.com/ian-fleming-book-collector/
There are all sorts of reasons why an entry, even one as benign (and interesting) as this one, can encounter pushback at Wikipedia. If you're taking Wikipedia too seriously you're not using it in the spirit in which it ought to be used. With many grains of salted patience and studied indifference.
And I would hazard a guess the average Wikipedia author is not a zealous partisan of a cause or causes, but somebody who wishes to say to the world: look what I know and you don't. Sounds to me that you likely offended the Fleming Bond "purists." No room for rare book collecting in their Bond worldview. Somewhat ironic in that collecting rare books is a hobby Bond might have engaged in, if he weren't so busy making himself expert on rare vintages.
Also, I find this little Fleming nugget you've unearthed interesting insofar that it's personally germane---the Lilly Library was one of my primary study redoubts as an undergrad.
You are right. I usually add small things and am happy. The Twitter Files was an anomaly in my W. work..
But now I have your attention.... what Bond collected were books that "started something," --landmark texts in science, technology, literature, sports and social and political movements. The collection — most of which came from the 19th and 20th centuries — included the first manual of golf instruction, H.B. Farnie's "The Golfer's Manual"; a manual for building airplanes, "The Aero Manual"; and an 1848 German first edition of "Manifesto of the Communist Party" by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. etc.
I thought this was SO interesting, but W. eds at Ian Fleming didn't. I was, however, able to add a bit to the W. entry about The Book Collector.
Thanks for the insights.
I believe Fleming's Wikipedia entry is the longest I've seen---and skimmed. I've read shorter biographies. I now understand how you could be a bit sore over being rebuffed with you entry. I had forgotten that Fleming wrote Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang.
My personal favorite entry in that whole thing, for its sheer superfluousness:
"...His lifestyle at Eton brought him into conflict with his housemaster, E. V. Slater, who disapproved of Fleming's attitude, his hair oil, his ownership of a car and his relations with women."
Who hasn't had a run-in at one time with a Housemaster over their hair oil?
What a Dick. Really, you are.