Wikipedia entries for notable railway people.

[Jamiel]

I know that railways and their staff are well represented in Wikipedia, but I wondered if there are people that forum members feel should be added, and if perhaps people could make contributions to the information that would need to be included as well as the necessary references to justify adding a listing.

I ask this, because I have several books and videos by Gavin Morrison, and when I looked to see if he was on Wikipedia the only Gavin Morrison listed was a Scottish footballer.

In comparison there are listings for Eric Trecy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Treacy ) and Ian Allen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Allan_(publisher)) who I know are better known.

Here is Wikipedia’s guide to ‘Notabilty’ for inclusion on the website.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)

 

Do forum members feel that someone like Gavin Morrison should be represented on Wikipedia? Are there other railway men, or women who you feel have been overlooked by Wikipedia?

Jamie

Edited July 30, 2017 by Jamiel

[Classsix T]

Doesn't the organic nature of Wiki mean you're free to add your own entry Jamie?

 

Though I understand if you've no actual knowledge of the man you'd be reluctant to do such a thing.

 

C6T.

[Bernard Lamb]

I find Wikipedia a very strange beast.

Various people who I would consider to be "famous" and worthy of an entry are not included, but all sorts of other people are in there.

If I were to look up several people that I know well who are in there I am sure I would find errors and omissions.

I have done just that with a couple of people who I know like to keep their private life private. Ironically the wife of one of them, a well known railway man, has just published her autobiography where all is revealed.

By all means add an entry after consulting those concerned, but I am afraid that I for one will take it with a large pinch of salt.

Bernard

[Talltim]

Wiki entries cannot be original research. That means finding reputable sources information to create a page or add to one. This can be hard with some notionally quite notable people.

[Ozexpatriate]

I find Wikipedia a very strange beast.

Various people who I would consider to be "famous" and worthy of an entry are not included, but all sorts of other people are in there.

It is. I would think the focus of Wikipedia entries should be those who are deceased. Wikipedia does have some extra rules for pages on people who are still alive.

 

A quick sampling of the pages for grouping era Chief Mechanical Engineers shows big variations in the quality and depth of the content.

The page for Sir William Stanier is quite brief compared say with Sir Nigel Gresley. Much of the page space is given to links to locomotive classes as well.  O.V.S. Bulleid has a more comprehensive page than either of them.  C.B. Collett has a much shorter page than G.J. Churchward.

 

Doubtless there are model railway or preservation enthusiasts who have contributed to biographies - I imagine that such enthusiasts are behind most of the pages on locomotive classes.  Frankly the community of experts here, with their extensive libraries are well equipped to add a lot of relevant detail to the Wikipedia biographies.

[Ozexpatriate]

Wiki entries cannot be original research. That means finding reputable sources information to create a page or add to one. This can be hard with some notionally quite notable people.

Yet even when sources are available, pages can be sketchy.

 

Take for example Sir Felix Pole - the man who authorized the construction of the King, but had a very interesting career starting in what today we would call 'marketing' and rising up through the company, partly through his championing of safety.

 

Wikipedia has less than 200 words on him. He wrote an autobiography covering his very interesting career.

 

Are autobiographies not permitted as a source in Wikipedia? None of the references on his page refer to his autobiography.

Edited August 3, 2017 by Ozexpatriate

[Jamiel]

Thanks for the replies.

C6T, you are quite right, a page can simply be added, but I thought that the forum would be a good place to gauge if people here, who are obviously close to Gavin Morrison's subject, thought him worthy of inclusion, or were indeed surprised at his omission.

I do think that before adding an entry a reasonable amount of research should be done. I don't know his date of birth, or even the place of it, just that I have quite a few books and a couple of DVD of which he is the author.

As Bernard pints out, there are listings for people many would think far less notable. It is down to people who do have knowledge of the subjects to add and correct details, which is the nature of Wikipedia. Although there have been errors in listings it is down to readers to give corrections, as it is not an endeavour built on a huge financial investment like Encyclopedia Britannica and made for profit, it is an organic combining of the knowledge of many people for the sake of the improvement of all who read it.

I have had a brief look at the dust jackets of a couple of Gavin Morrison's books, but they do not have the traditional kind half page biography that many other factual books include.

I am also slightly concerned that adding a page for a living person might be against their wishes, and although Wikipedia is not a home of tabloid sensationalism, I could understand if someone would not wish to be listed there.

Finally I did look to see if Gavin Morrison has an imdb page, and he does not. I suspect that the DVDs and films he has made do not enter into the sphere of imdb, although I know of a great many listings there that have far less cultural or artistic value than his work.

Perhaps I will have look for more information on him this weekend.

[stovepipe]

I seem to recall a regular feature in Rail Enthusiast in the mid-1980s which showcased the works of a different photographer each time - I believe Gavin Morrison, Les Nixon and a number of others were covered, and usually there was some biographical information alongside the photos. I could probably locate these articles without too much trouble if needed.

[Bernard Lamb]

I would think the focus of Wikipedia entries should be those who are deceased. Wikipedia does have some extra rules for pages on people who are still alive.

There is a great inconsistency between entries for those that are still living.

One person I know for example has a very comprehensive entry that suddenly stops around 2004.

If you look into their life thy were always in the public eye. At that date they published an autobiography, did a last interview and quietly dropped out of public life. I am sure I am not alone in knowing where they are and what they are doing. The media it would seem have an agreement to respect their wishes regarding privacy. Again regarding details of families some entries are very comprehensive whilst others say nothing. Same goes on here I suppose with some members who mention partners and some who live in a secret bubble.

Bernard

[Oldddudders]

I think creation of Wikipedia entries requires an odd mix of skills. On the one hand you need a degree of passion about the subject to even contemplate it, on the other you need to be more scholarly than passionate in your analysis of available resources and distillation thereof into your Wiki entry. It is no good just saying 'Fred was a really clever bloke' even though that is what you believe.

 

Presumably most of us who post on here think we can string a few sentences together, but I would never contemplate originating a Wiki entry because the subject, and the earnest environment that Wikipedia seeks to be, would both deserve more respect than I might muster.

[MJI]

There are a number of big problems.

 

Original information, quite often original first hand information is correct and usefull, but because it is not ina book, nor elsewhere on the internet it is removed.

 

Duff information, pretend fact made up, gets duplicated into Wiki, stays there because of references to it.

[Ozexpatriate]

Presumably most of us who post on here think we can string a few sentences together, but I would never contemplate originating a Wiki entry because the subject, and the earnest environment that Wikipedia seeks to be, would both deserve more respect than I might muster.

There's an intimidation factor there to be sure.

 

A certain level of passion is required, if nothing else to understand the 'rules' of composing a Wikipedia entry. This page is interesting.

 

I don't see it very differently from the commitment required to scratch build and publicly exhibit a model purporting to represent a real prototype. It invites criticism but if properly researched content will not be problematic.

[jjb1970]

I really don't see why writing a Wikipedia entry should be that daunting and don't see it as something that is beyond most of us. I think you could split this into two categories:

 

- Graduates. If you've been to university then you will already have experience of referencing and having to apply a certain degree of academic rigour to writing. Many will have written and delivered papers at academic conferences or for technical journals which I'd consider more daunting than writing a Wikipedia page.

 

- People who have not had such an academic past. The fact we're all participating indicates none of us are illiterate (although I try my best to qualify as being functionally illiterate) and with a little application almost anybody should be able to write an article and learn the discipline/skill of referencing using online help sites. Yes, in this case you're probably well outside your comfort zone but if you make the effort it is probably something which will stand you in much better stead than learning modelling skills.

 

If you're really interested then my advice is to have a go.

[Clearwater]

A few years ago Wikipedia had a prune of pages. I was told by a mate who had bizarrely found a page on himself. He'd won the 15-1 quiz show and someone wrote a page on each of the winners. I think he was relieved when it was deleted!

[jjb1970]

A few years ago Wikipedia had a prune of pages. I was told by a mate who had bizarrely found a page on himself. He'd won the 15-1 quiz show and someone wrote a page on each of the winners. I think he was relieved when it was deleted!

 

I think it is always interesting and a bit of an eye opener to research your own on-line presence.

[Clearwater]

I think it is always interesting and a bit of an eye opener to research your own on-line presence.

My own presence is comfortingly low...

[Jamiel]

JJB1970 and Clearwater, you open up an interesting issue.

Researching your on-line presence is interesting, but is only relevant if you do it on a computer you have not used the web on before, and probably from a new IP address too. The 'internet bubble' has been created by internet search engines in order to tailor the results you see to the interests you have. Various search engines record you entries and match them to similar searches, they also access your cookies, so if you search for your-self, or perhaps the layout you have created, then quite a few entries will mirror you past internet history and so your search will disproportionately reflect your actual presence on the net.

There are search engines that do not use this technology (I think I tried DuckDuckGo), but they are not as comprehensive as ones like Google which use it heavily.

This has had an interesting affect on politics, as here the internet bubble is very strong, unfortunately it convinces people that there are many, or the majority, with similar views, reinforcing their opinions. The results of several elections and polls over the last few years have come as a considerable shock to many, as everyone they were in contact with had similar views, because the internet bubble had isolated them from those with opposing views.

It can have a positive effect as well, as through various groups or forums I have joined I have found good friends, real friends I have met, shared time with, and not just a number ticked in the corner of a Facebook page.

Clearwater, having a low internet presence is quite an admirable achievement. Did you try searching for any pseudonyms you presence under which your presence might be disguised?

Anyway this is a digression.

Ozexpatriate and JJB1970 your points about academic writing and referencing are very good. I have worked as a university lecturer the last couple of years, and I know just how hard it is to get students to reference their written material correctly. Thankfully with that experience and also my M.A. dissertation it is an area I can manage at a basic level at least.

I registered with Wikipedia a few years ago in order to make some corrections, so that kind of writing is not as hard as many think. It has a good level of checking information, and is also good at removing entries that do not warrant being on the site.

Just as a reference, I helped contribute to the Wikipedia page on a band I followed when younger called 'IQ'. I am not sure many here will have heard of them, and Wikipedia put a note on their listing saying that it did not have enough references to justify the listing. I know another band, who played pubs around Leeds who added their entry, and quite rightly that was deleted by Wikipedia, as they had not reached any level of notability. IQ had the stub page expanded, links to published articles added etc. and the page became accurate and reached the level of justification/notability Wikipedia require.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_(band)

Interestingly someone has added a page for their singer, which Wikipedia have marked as lacking the correct referencing, and I would suggest lacks the notability to remain on the site. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Nicholls_(musician)

I do feel that Gavin Morrison is as notable in his field as the band 'IQ' are in theirs, and would justify an entry, but it is down to finding enough information that can be verified and referenced correctly. That obviously is much harder than just typing up 'Gavin Morrison, railway photographer, lives in England, (probably) born before 1968 when steam engines were withdrawn from British Rail. Published a few books.'

I will try and do some research on Gavin Morrison and post it on here, as I am sure the specialist knowledge here is far superior to that of the general Wikipedia reader and editor.

Thanks for the replies, and any further comments would be greatly appreciated.

Jamie

Edited August 5, 2017 by Jamiel

[jjb1970]

As some may have noticed from my posts on RMWeb, my use of English and grammar is terrible. Basically because when I write things here I'm lazy and just bang stuff out. However, at work I have to write reports and occasionally have to write technical papers, and have to work quite hard to make my work presentable. The method I use (and it is only a method that works for me, others might dismiss it as a rubbish way to work) is:

 

• Bang it out, get the content down and capture the technical stuff/message
• Re-write it to improve the wording, edit it to avoid over long and ponderous sentences and try and make it engaging (a lot of people forget just how important readability is, nobody wants to read a turgid tome that uses 10,000 words where 100 would have sufficed)
• Go through it again tightening it up still more, spotting typos and mistakes

 

Then, leave it for a week or more, revisit it and go through it again as invariably you see all sorts of opportunities to improve it you missed in the first passes. Then ask somebody to review it. After that, it should be OK. The above sounds quite hard work, and it is. As a child of the 70's I was educated in an era where basic grammar and traditional education was derided and all that mattered was being able to express yourself. The result is that I still find writing hard work and it requires quite a bit of effort for me to produce written work to a high standard. I'm envious of those who can easily produce a well written, lucid, engaging paper. However, I guess what I'm saying is that if you make an effort most people can do it, some of my papers received academic awards and prizes from my institute so if you make the effort I think anybody can write a decent article or paper.

 

Referencing is crucial, I always do the referencing as I work as to try and go back later is a nightmare, if for no other reason I find that when I have missed references that half the time I struggle to rediscover the original reference. There are some good software packages to help people with referencing but I find that Word works fine doing it manually.

[Killian keane]

William Martleys page contains a notable blunder, he is referred to as Kirtley by accident, (his replacement IIRC)

[Bernard Lamb]

I think it is always interesting and a bit of an eye opener to research your own on-line presence.

Back in the early days of the internet I went on a cycling holiday.

On the first evening we all had to introduce ourselves and give a brief personal history.

Most of the group were surprised when one couple said that they knew all about me as they had looked me up on the internet.

At that time it was unusual,l but these days it seems to be the norm. Which is where the problem comes in with inaccurate information and .a weird selection in respect of those who are included and those who are omitted.

One very sensitive area is military history. Some on line articles give the impression that the subject won the war almost single handed, while the official accounts, that can be seen only if you sign up that you will not quote from them, tell a very different story.

Bernard

[jjb1970]

If it's on the Internet it must be true!  

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Fortunately I have a very common surname..........

[Talltim]

The requirement for sourcing on wiki is a bit patchy. For biographical entries and those which are controversial they are pretty much compulsory, otherwise edits will be removed even if they are correct.

However, the first page I created nearly 10 years ago still has no sources...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luton_Hoo_railway_station

Edited August 6, 2017 by Talltim

[The Johnster]

I have found no difficulty in correcting, editing, or otherwise altering content on wikipedia where I knew it to be wrong or misinformed, and would not have any hesitation in writing an entry on a subject if I thought I knew enough about one or that there was sufficient interest to be bothered.  Wikipedia is actually a very clever concept; the idea that anyone and everyone can contribute means that, in the early stages of an entry being put up on it, all and any sort of unsubstantiated and unlikely nonsense may appear (for some reason almost always from Americans), but it fairly rapidly gets edited and altered by those whose level of knowledge and desire to disseminate correct information provides a moderating and modifying influence..  It is, in this way, very effectively self regulated and self edited.  

[Classsix T]

As some may have noticed from my posts on RMWeb, my use of English and grammar is terrible.

No. And wtf?

Smoke blowing perhaps, but it's refreshing to receive posts from someone with fundamental knowledge of small,medium and large diesels, in a variety of purposes (worldwide). Plus power generation to boot.

Laid out in "this this and this, is my experience" perspective.

Perhaps there has been banana skin moments when factual knowledge of internal BR affairs has escaped you but you're taking that on-board and learning from it.

 

The grammar, meh, you at least know the difference between there,they're and their. Something that REALLY grinds my gears currently prevalent on RMWeb.

 

C6T.