Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Wikipedia - a neglected opportunity
#1
Like it or not, if you use a search engine to find out something related to Ancient warfare a Wikipedia article is likely to be the topmost hit.

With some notable exceptions, most articles on this subject are poor, some are frankly appalling. Wikipedia is the highest profile medium available for the dissemination of good quality information about our shared field of interest. I think that it is a great pity that more well-informed and articulate people are not involved in improving this interface with the general public. All too often inaccurate information is being presented as fact on Wikipedia.

I would present the following article, that I had a major hand in writing, as an example of what can be achieved:

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

In particular the repository of freely available images (Wikimedia commons) is very sparse on many aspects of Ancient warfare. I know that many people using this site have images of armour and weapons, reconstructed or original, that would be invaluable if made open to the public via Wikipedia articles. For example there are no useful images of such things as Boeotian helmets and xiphos or machaira swords - even the Dura cataphract graffito is missing.

I would appeal to the people who contribute to this site to have a look at Wikipedia and possibly do something to improve the representation of those subjects that we all find fascinating.
Martin

Fac me cocleario vomere!
Reply
#2
I've maintained the pages on Aetius for over a year now and was working on the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains article and I also improved the Magister Militum page.

I agree, we should help make Wikipedia a better, more well researched source. For one we need to get rid of the crappy misconceptions about the Late Roman army on there.

In fact, I'm going to start on the Late Roman Army page.
Reply
#3
Glad to hear that you are involved in the Late Roman articles. I overhauled all the articles on the battles of Constantine the Great to a greater or lesser extent; the Battle of the Milvian Bridge article had no description of the actual fighting, lots on Constantine's vision of course, before I added it. The Late Roman army article is at least reasonably well referenced, although the emphasis of the whole thing is bad I would agree..
Martin

Fac me cocleario vomere!
Reply
#4
Same here. I have lots of books, articles, and resources I can use to improve it. I also should do work on the articles on the Huns.

I need to update the Aetius and Catalaunian Fields pages again...
Reply
#5
MIke Bishop submitted an article on lorica segmentata, and was dismayed to find that it had been edited within an hour, and within two days was unrecognizable.
Richard Campbell
Legio XX - Alexandria, Virginia
RAT member #6?
Reply
#6
I'm working on the page on Late Roman ridge helmets.

You can undo other people's edits you know. I've done it a few times, usually with the comment of "you don't know what you're talking about. read a few books: example, X, etc..."
Reply
#7
Quote:MIke Bishop submitted an article on lorica segmentata, and was dismayed to find that it had been edited within an hour, and within two days was unrecognizable.
I had a similar experience when I attempted to fix the problems with the article on ring armour. After weeks of hassles I managed to get the rubbish removed and leaving it as a "stub" entry but any attempt at elaboration still gets vandalised even today. The only thing I really managed to accomplish was to include a link to the Arador article on the subject.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
Reply
#8
Quote:You can undo other people's edits you know.

Unfortunately so can everybody else and as long as you go unnoticed its not necessarily a problem, but to my mind its the wrong place to put anything worthwhile unless you want to fight a continual battle over it, it would probably be better if RAT had its own version of Wiki or RATipedia editable only by members... just my 2 cents Wink
Ivor

"And the four bare walls stand on the seashore. a wreck a skeleton a monument of that instability and vicissitude to which all things human are subject. Not a dwelling within sight, and the farm labourer, and curious traveller, are the only persons that ever visit the scene where once so many thousands were congregated." T.Lewin 1867
Reply
#9
Quote:
Magister Militum Flavius Aetius post=359433 Wrote:You can undo other people's edits you know.

Unfortunately so can everybody else and as long as you go unnoticed its not necessarily a problem, but to my mind its the wrong place to put anything worthwhile unless you want to fight a continual battle over it, it would probably be better if RAT had its own version of Wiki or RATipedia editable only by members... just my 2 cents Wink

That's a good idea. I know there is a "Roman Empire" wiki but it's terrible, I've seen it before. Can't remember what it's called...

However, running a wiki usually costs money, and that's up to Jasper.
Reply
#10
Non-constructive edits can be challenged, if they are mere vandalism then they are usually reverted as a matter of course, if someone is peddling rubbish then you can use superior references to deal with them. Statements supported by reliable and verifiable sources are rarely changed without some prior discussion.

In order to minimise wholesale destruction of good quality writing we just need a group of like-minded people to "watchlist" relevant pages (this means that any changes to the pages are notified to you). In this way articles can be patrolled and protected. In point of fact very few of my pages have been subject to any sustained problems. However, it is true that you cannot expect anything you write on Wikipedia to be treated as though it were a published monograph.
Martin

Fac me cocleario vomere!
Reply
#11
Awhile back, I added some info to Wiki's page on Tewdrig ap Theithfallt based on primary info recorded in the Libre Landaff and secondary material by Prof. John Morris, and I gave both citations. The gist was this-- Tewdrig was the son of a Goth. His original name was Theodoric son of Theudebalth; but this info (evidently not sufficiently Celtophilic) was removed within a few weeks by someone's quick edit.

I don't believe this edit was vandalism, but rather Welsh Nationalism. I never bothered with Wikipedia again. Cool
Alan J. Campbell

member of Legio III Cyrenaica and the Uncouth Barbarians

Author of:
The Demon's Door Bolt (2011)
Forging the Blade (2012)

"It's good to be king. Even when you're dead!"
             Old Yuezhi/Pazyrk proverb
Reply
#12
Unfortunately Morris's book has been subject to a great deal of academic criticism, and is not considered Kosher. Personally I think this unfair, he was trying to make a synthesis from all evidence into a coherent political history, that he stretched his evidence too far in this direction should not invalidate the evidence itself.

The same information (about Tewdrig) is still available in the article on Cerdic of Wessex.

The point is that Wikipedia requires effort, stick something that someone else thinks is contentious on a Wikipedia article and you need to defend it - walk away and it will be changed. This is why I suggested that a group of editors should be formed to reform the Ancient warfare articles - there is strength in numbers, as everything on Wikipedia is done through consensus. Get enough support from other well-informed editors and you can win any argument.

I have the same problem with Armenian and Macedonian nationalists with some Byzantine articles. I just remove all non-referenced material and anything referenced I find something that contradicts it.
Martin

Fac me cocleario vomere!
Reply
#13
Quote:
Crispianus post=359435 Wrote:
Magister Militum Flavius Aetius post=359433 Wrote:You can undo other people's edits you know.

Unfortunately so can everybody else and as long as you go unnoticed its not necessarily a problem, but to my mind its the wrong place to put anything worthwhile unless you want to fight a continual battle over it, it would probably be better if RAT had its own version of Wiki or RATipedia editable only by members... just my 2 cents Wink

That's a good idea. I know there is a "Roman Empire" wiki but it's terrible, I've seen it before. Can't remember what it's called...

However, running a wiki usually costs money, and that's up to Jasper.

I would say rather its up to those who decide to create the Wiki in the first place, I'm sure Jasper doesn't need the extra work.... ;-)
Ivor

"And the four bare walls stand on the seashore. a wreck a skeleton a monument of that instability and vicissitude to which all things human are subject. Not a dwelling within sight, and the farm labourer, and curious traveller, are the only persons that ever visit the scene where once so many thousands were congregated." T.Lewin 1867
Reply
#14
For Alanus - I have just replaced the Germanic origins for Tewdrig's name in the article on him. I just needed to dig up a reference that could not be challenged on the grounds of academic respectability. Job done!
Martin

Fac me cocleario vomere!
Reply
#15
Hello, Martin

Thanks for slipping Tewdrig back into his correct ancestery. Other than Jesus College MS 20, he has five or six other pedigrees, all of them trying to fit him into a British lineage. The key, as John Morris noted, was his father Theithfallt. Morris spelled it as "Thiudebald" which is actually West Germanic (Frankish), but the correct name would have been "Thiedebalth" in Gothic, or "the bold prince." This is unsubstantiated, albeit accurate, and cannot be Wiki-fied. It'll be interesting how long your addition remains on the Wiki article. Confusedmile:
Alan J. Campbell

member of Legio III Cyrenaica and the Uncouth Barbarians

Author of:
The Demon's Door Bolt (2011)
Forging the Blade (2012)

"It's good to be king. Even when you're dead!"
             Old Yuezhi/Pazyrk proverb
Reply


Forum Jump: