Let's Look at WIKI

DickH · #1 (**permalink**) 12-13-2006, 12:50 PM

In a recent thread about re-banding the PRO-97, someone jumped all over me because I stated my opinion that WIKI was not a very reliable source of information. At that time, someone commented that WIKI said the PRO-97 WAS re-bandable. An e-mail from Radio Shack voiced uncertainty, so someone posted that WIKI now says the PRO-97 can NOT be re-banded.

This all reinforces my opinion that WIKI is not completely reliable.
Furthermore, as an author, I do not believe it is ethical to change what others have written. WIKI should be set up so that only the original author can change something. People that feel corrections or changes are needed should contact the author and let him make whatever changes he feels necessary. The original author should be responsible for the information, right or wrong.

weirdal · #2 (**permalink**) 12-13-2006, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DickH

In a recent thread about re-banding the PRO-97, someone jumped all over me because I stated my opinion that WIKI was not a very reliable source of information. At that time, someone commented that WIKI said the PRO-97 WAS re-bandable. An e-mail from Radio Shack voiced uncertainty, so someone posted that WIKI now says the PRO-97 can NOT be re-banded.

This all reinforces my opinion that WIKI is not completely reliable.
Furthermore, as an author, I do not believe it is ethical to change what others have written. WIKI should be set up so that only the original author can change something. People that feel corrections or changes are needed should contact the author and let him make whatever changes he feels necessary. The original author should be responsible for the information, right or wrong.

While I agree with you that any wiki isn't a good source of information, to only allow authors to edit would defeat the purpose.

Dubbin · #3 (**permalink**) 12-13-2006, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by weirdal

While I agree with you that any wiki isn't a good source of information, to only allow authors to edit would defeat the purpose.

Its a good source for information, its just not always a source for good information

ka3jjz · #4 (**permalink**) 12-13-2006, 01:43 PM

The information on the Wiki is only as good as...

the folks that take the time to create and update it when errors are found. 'nuff said.

73s Mike

scancapecod · #5 (**permalink**) 12-13-2006, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DickH

In a recent thread about re-banding the PRO-97, someone jumped all over me because I stated my opinion that WIKI was not a very reliable source of information.

For the record, that someone was me. I wasn't trying to jump all over you, Dick, but quite frankly the tone of your comment is what irked me. That comment was:

Quote:

Originally Posted by DickH

I wouldn't rely on anything on WIKI because ANYONE can post ANYTHING there.

The comment is correct, but this comes across as rather negative right off the bat. Anyone can post anything there, yes....and that is the beauty of it. The premise is that most people that choose to do so are going to make an effort to post information that is as accurate as possible. The beauty of it is that if erroneous information is entered, someone else can come along and edit it quickly with (hopefully) the proper information. The fact that it is community based in my opinion offers great potential to quickly compile accurate information pertinent to the hobby from all parts of the world.

It's up to the users to ensure that information is accurate in any Wiki. If it's not, instead of griping about it, it's very simple to create an account, learn how to use it, and edit accordingly. Ethics have nothing to do with it. Most Wikis advise their users that they submit data fully knowing that it can be edited. Here is the disclaimer at this one:

Quote:

Please note that all contributions to The RadioReference Wiki may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then don't submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see Project:Copyrights for details). DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!

Quote:

Originally Posted by DickH

WIKI should be set up so that only the original author can change something. People that feel corrections or changes are needed should contact the author and let him make whatever changes he feels necessary. The original author should be responsible for the information, right or wrong.

This would absolutely defeat the purpose of the Wiki. It defeats the spirit and purpose of its intent.

No Wiki will ever be 100% accurate, but if users will participate in its upkeep instead of making rogue comments and then doing nothing about it, it will remain as accurate as it can be. That's the way it works at my website anyway, and I'm sure it is/can be the same here.

I wasn't jumping down your throat, Dick, but I was disagreeing with you, absolutely.

kicktd · #6 (**permalink**) 12-13-2006, 02:06 PM

That was me who posted about it now saying no lol. I just think it shouldn't say neither yes nor no at this moment as it is unclear whether RadioShack will or will not support it. So maybe it can say something like Rebanding Supported: Unknown at this time.

That would cover both a Yes and a No answer in the future, but until we get further info from RS, I don't think it should say either or. Make sense?

But yes a Wiki is only as good as those who contribute to it and help make sure it's accurate.

Dubbin · #7 (**permalink**) 12-13-2006, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kicktd

That was me who posted about it now saying no lol. I just think it shouldn't say neither yes nor no at this moment as it is unclear weather RadioShack will or will not support it. So maybe it can say something like Rebanding Supported: Unknown at this time.

Well I guess it needs to be changed to "Unknown at this time"

UPMan · #8 (**permalink**) 12-13-2006, 02:35 PM

Since it was dragging on, I changed it to "MAYBE" and included the latest email reported from RS (although their answer seems to be leaning more toward "MAYBE...NOT").

The answer, BTW, is "MAYBE" for every scanner that currently has a "YES," too. Until a Motorola analog system that requires the new control channel format goes on the air, no one can definitively say "YES" (and I make sure I include that disclaimer on all of our official statements and quite a few of the unofficial ones...like this).

kicktd · #9 (**permalink**) 12-13-2006, 02:40 PM

Maybe...You'll get lucky and we'll support it or Maybe...not

I'm still half asleep lol but I agree that no one can say for sure until the first system is up and running with the new format.

scancapecod · #10 (**permalink**) 12-13-2006, 02:42 PM

We're straying a bit from the Wiki topic that Dick started though. I'd love to hear more comments and thoughts on that "issue".

Dubbin · #11 (**permalink**) 12-13-2006, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scancapecod

We're straying a bit from the Wiki topic that Dick started though. I'd love to hear more comments and thoughts on that "issue".

I don't really see it as an issue. It's just like anything else posted on the internet, it may be true and it may not be true. For the most part though, you will find good info there.

UPMan · #12 (**permalink**) 12-13-2006, 02:54 PM

Wiki is, by definition, a community authored resource. It is the obligation of every member of the community to:

1) Only write factual information (or at least clearly identify speculation or opinion);
2) Correct pages when the facts change (either by replacing the outdated information or by recasting the information to include both what used to be true and what is now true).
3) Add a clearly identified alternative "slant" if a speculative or opinion piece is disagreed with (and this is where the original author's stuff is best left alone).

#3 should be read and followed with caution, though. Wiki is intended to be an encyclopedia of facts, not a discussion forum. In the rr.com wiki, there should be very little of either speculation or opinion, but there might be cases where such content is appropriate (product reviews might be an acceptable place where clearly identified opinions could be included).

16b · #13 (**permalink**) 12-13-2006, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DickH

I wouldn't rely on anything on WIKI because ANYONE can post ANYTHING there.

That's also the reason that information in a Wiki *is* reliable. Generally, the more people who are involved in something, the more collective knowledge there is on it. Take Wikipedia, for example. While I despise the WikiNerds on there, they do have something going for them in the fact that it is hard for someone to post something that isn't correct because there are so many other people who will catch it if it happens.

weirdal · #14 (**permalink**) 12-13-2006, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 16b

That's also the reason that information in a Wiki *is* reliable. Generally, the more people who are involved in something, the more collective knowledge there is on it. Take Wikipedia, for example. While I despise the WikiNerds on there, they do have something going for them in the fact that it is hard for someone to post something that isn't correct because there are so many other people who will catch it if it happens.

Correct, but I've seen students use wikipedia.org as a source on essays for school WAY too many times. Nobody should ever use a wiki if then need to be 100% sure on something.

I've used ours for browsing for a new scanner, but I always check the "official" spec lists before making a purchase. And I would never base an argument off of something listed on a wiki. I hate when people do that, it turns out to be false, and they act as if it isn't their fault for getting the wrong information at all. If you use a wiki and choose not to find an alternative source, it's your own fault if some of the info is false.

mancow · #15 (**permalink**) 12-13-2006, 11:32 PM

Wouldn't you think one thing that would have been dealt with right off the bat would be the frequency table. It just seems strange.

DickH · #16 (**permalink**) 12-14-2006, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mancow

Wouldn't you think one thing that would have been dealt with right off the bat would be the frequency table. It just seems strange.

It's even stranger when you consider Motorola released the new programming early this year - Feb.?

UPMan · #17 (**permalink**) 12-14-2006, 10:24 AM

The frequency table was released 2 years ago. The control channel format has not been released (it was approved in February, but not released in any public system).

DickH · #18 (**permalink**) 12-14-2006, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UPMan

The frequency table was released 2 years ago. The control channel format has not been released (it was approved in February, but not released in any public system).

Could you clarify that? Doesn't the CC use the new freq. table? If so, why do we need to wait for a rebanded system to go on line?

UPMan · #19 (**permalink**) 12-14-2006, 01:36 PM

From just the frequency table, you cannot tell what other changes will be made to the control channel data. You can know that something in the data will relate to each of the frequencies in the new table, but exactly what sequence the bits will be in is unknown.

DickH · #20 (**permalink**) 12-14-2006, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UPMan

From just the frequency table, you cannot tell what other changes will be made to the control channel data. You can know that something in the data will relate to each of the frequencies in the new table, but exactly what sequence the bits will be in is unknown.

Ah, I see. Thanks very much. BTW, I heard that the new Motorola programming allows a system manager to change the bandplan. Is there any credence to that?