Poor quality articles and blogs

General conversation and chit chat - The place for non-shooting specific topics. Introduce yourself here.

Poor quality articles and blogs

Post by mickb » 13 May 2019, 5:36 pm

Just been noticing the last few years how innaccurate a lot of the gun info on the web is these days. I remember when shooting blogs and wikipedia kicked off many years ago I was mildly suprised how they generally maintained the facts and appeared to be written by the experts or at least well read enthusiasts. It was probably because mainly those types were starting the first forums.

Now a days it looks like everyone has a go at an opinion, whether they know anything or not, or got their experience of a computer game. Wikipedia is a mess. I spent some time correcting a lot of the articles on big game rifles and crossbows, having used and wildcatted them for 20+ years but I gave up. " The cartridge is capable of greater accuracy thanks to its straighter penetration". wtf does it even mean. "The 357 magnum and 50AE are the two largest calibres in production handguns" really? " Modern crossbows don't use arrows they use heavy darts" This is on wikipedia right now, they even have a picture of some all metallic mini-dart next to it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossbow I have corrected this twice but it keeps getting re-corrected , must be some kid who has never used a crossbow outside of assassins creed??

Sort of a strange rant for a fairly decent arvo isnt it but there you go. :)
Last edited by mickb on 13 May 2019, 11:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
mickb
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 181
Other

Re: Poor quality articles and blogs

Post by on_one_wheel » 13 May 2019, 6:18 pm

I'm guessing that this is what your talking about ... what sort of weird contraption is that?

Screenshot_20190513-174551_Chrome.jpg
Screenshot_20190513-174551_Chrome.jpg (311.43 KiB) Viewed 483 times


You need to watch the movie called Idiocracy.
It explains in a comical way just how stupid were becoming as a population.
Gun control requires concentration and a steady hand.


on_one_wheel LIVES LEFT: 3..BONUS POINTS: 8
User avatar
on_one_wheel
Brigadier
Brigadier
 
Posts: 2294
South Australia

Re: Poor quality articles and blogs

Post by duncan61 » 13 May 2019, 6:47 pm

308 Win case capacity is 56 gr H2O (3.6 cm3). And 7mm Rem Mag is 82.0 gr H2O (5.31 cm3) yet some articles claim the 338 Federal has the same ballistics as 7mm Rem Mag.When new chamberings come out there is a bit of excited journalism going on.I hope someone can prove this as I was keen on 338 Fed as a heavy pill short range buffalo rifle
.22 winchester .22hornet .222 .243 7mm rem mag cbc 12g
User avatar
duncan61
Major
Major
 
Posts: 1542
Western Australia

Re: Poor quality articles and blogs

Post by mickb » 13 May 2019, 7:08 pm

on_one_wheel wrote:I'm guessing that this is what your talking about ... what sort of weird contraption is that?

Screenshot_20190513-174551_Chrome.jpg


You need to watch the movie called Idiocracy.
It explains in a comical way just how stupid were becoming as a population.


Lol yes that bloody thing. I even posted about it on crossbow forums and no one has had any luck changing it. The device returns every time. Some kid out there is really keen on getting his deranged message out there that this is a normal representation of a crossbow bolt.
mickb
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 181
Other

Re: Poor quality articles and blogs

Post by Ziad » 13 May 2019, 8:09 pm

Hey when I went through uni...my lectures always said you they needed references, and wikipedia is NOT a reference they would accept.
Blame it on the phone auto correct
Ziad
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 1171
Victoria

Re: Poor quality articles and blogs

Post by mickb » 13 May 2019, 10:55 pm

well none of it was ever meant to be academic writing. But at least the articles generally made sense and you could tell the author knew his business.
mickb
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 181
Other

Re: Poor quality articles and blogs

Post by No1_49er » 13 May 2019, 11:22 pm

mickb wrote:Just been noticing the last few years how innaccurate a lot of the gun info on the web is these days. I remember when shooting blogs and wikipedia kicked off many years ago I was mildly suprised how they generally maintained the facts and appeared to be written by the experts or at least well read enthusiasts. It was probably because mainly those types were starting the first forums.

Now a days it looks like everyone has a go at an opinion, whether they know anything or not, or got their experience of a computer game. Wikipedia is a mess. I spent some time correcting a lot of the articles on big game rifles and crossbows, having used and wildcatted them for 20+ years but I gave up. " The cartridge is capable of greater accuracy thanks to its straighter penetration". wtf does it even mean. "The 357 magnum and 50AE are the two largest calibres in production handguns" really? " Modern crossbows don't use arrows they use heavy darts" This is on wikipedia right now, they even have a picture of some all metallic mini-dart next to it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossbow I have corrected this twice but it keeps getting re-corrected , must be some kid who has never used a crossbow outside of assassins creed??

Sort of a strange rant for a fairly decent sunday arvo isnt it but there you go. :)

Sorry mickb, but I'm going to call you out on that.

If you know anything about crossbows, I would suggest that your knowledge is somewhat limited.

Just as there are Norinco 22LR rifles which are widely used as an entry point into shooting, there are also the likes of Anschutz, Walther, Grunig & Elmiger etc. at the upper end of the range.

WRT crossbows, I do know that the crossbow bolt as described in the Wikipedia reference is totally correct. If you chose to look at the last image on that description you will see a crossbow of the type with which I am familiar. In that configuration they are used in extremely competitive 10mtr 3P type shooting, predominantly in Europe, and are ruthless in exposing errors in ones technique and competency, just as an air rifle exposes similar faults in rimfire/centrefire technique.

Take a very close look at the image provided in the link below and you will see EXACTLY the type of bolt to which you object.
Worse, is that your "knowledge and expertise" on this matter riles you so much that you take it upon yourself and attempt to alter information that is correct. Is it any wonder that you have not succeeded?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... iessen.jpg

Take a look at some of the top products here http://www.winzeler.ch/de/
Proud member of "the powerful gun lobby" of Australia :)
No1_49er
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 444
Queensland

Re: Poor quality articles and blogs

Post by TassieTiger » 14 May 2019, 2:50 am

At this point in time, roughly 50% of the worlds population has access to the internet and only 5% of those manage and manipulate online content.
When we get to a point where that 50% jumps to 75% and when that 5% turns into say 40%, it’s likely that a saturation point will be reached where much of the content on the internet will be regarded (thought of) as bull crap with hidden agendas associated with everything - advertising or lobbying another reason behind the scene of every article or web site or who knows - there will be a point where we won’t be able to tell, what is real, what is fake - other than our own true world experiences - then when enough ppl realise that, what happens??
I know ppl who hardly ever leave their house and live on line...they have very little real world experience and rely on IT for everything...so if some of their information that they rely on is completely wrong?
Tikka T3 .260 (custom)
Steyr Pro Varmint .223
CZ455 .22 & Norinco .22
ATA 686 U/O 12g & Baikal S/S 12g
Steyr Pro Hunt 30-06 (Dud!!!)
Sauer 100 30-06
TassieTiger
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 1334
Tasmania

Re: Poor quality articles and blogs

Post by Ziad » 14 May 2019, 7:32 am

Mate, having been in IT and involved in computers since the 90s... that time is already here, I think 90% of stuff on the internet is crap. Its hard not impossible to tell what's true and what's not and what is specific misinformation to advance agendas.

It is very easy to someone with a bit of time and little bit of design skills to create a "news" site.
Blame it on the phone auto correct
Ziad
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 1171
Victoria

Re: Poor quality articles and blogs

Post by TassieTiger » 14 May 2019, 7:54 am

I saw an app in test last week where you could take a video of anyone you like, and have that person literally speak any words you chose - they had Donald trump saying he was in with the Russians etc it’s not quite 100% but it is pretty close and they will perfect it...
Tikka T3 .260 (custom)
Steyr Pro Varmint .223
CZ455 .22 & Norinco .22
ATA 686 U/O 12g & Baikal S/S 12g
Steyr Pro Hunt 30-06 (Dud!!!)
Sauer 100 30-06
TassieTiger
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 1334
Tasmania

Re: Poor quality articles and blogs

Post by Stix » 14 May 2019, 7:58 am

Yea Tasdie :thumbsup: ...but im with Ziad in believing that time is already here mate...

Its our prime time TV...!!

I caught a glimpse of 60 mins on Sunday night while flicking channels--apparently our deadly climate change is csusing a sand dune with a palm tree in the Solomon islands to be"sinking" (loosing its sand over the last 20 yrs--in reality & no doubt just shifting sand from tidal movement).

And naturally, the way the story was presented, you'd think all humanity in the southern hemisphere will perish by this weeks end.
Just the standard type of toxic garbage that 60 mins excrete & stupid people who've lost the ability to think for themselves, believe.

And the rubbish youth get pummeled into them is bewildering...Pansexual's...ffs... :roll:

Somewhere in amongst all this election crap, ive seen this disturbing footage of a poor little girl being in such fear about climate change, she is in tears & visibly shaking...& the people who use her (& her peers--all youth) to push their climate change agenda, sit back & smile...its appauling behaviour...really, why put a kid through that...that there is proof that emotiinal child abuse is legal if you do it right...!!! :thumbsdown:

Anyway, i dont mean to railroad this into a climate change thread--its just an example of how the time of false information being the norm is already here.
:drinks:
The man who knows everything, doesnt really know everything...he's just stopped learning...
Stix
Brigadier
Brigadier
 
Posts: 2389
South Australia

Re: Poor quality articles and blogs

Post by on_one_wheel » 14 May 2019, 12:45 pm

No1_49er wrote:
mickb wrote:Just been noticing the last few years how innaccurate a lot of the gun info on the web is these days. I remember when shooting blogs and wikipedia kicked off many years ago I was mildly suprised how they generally maintained the facts and appeared to be written by the experts or at least well read enthusiasts. It was probably because mainly those types were starting the first forums.

Now a days it looks like everyone has a go at an opinion, whether they know anything or not, or got their experience of a computer game. Wikipedia is a mess. I spent some time correcting a lot of the articles on big game rifles and crossbows, having used and wildcatted them for 20+ years but I gave up. " The cartridge is capable of greater accuracy thanks to its straighter penetration". wtf does it even mean. "The 357 magnum and 50AE are the two largest calibres in production handguns" really? " Modern crossbows don't use arrows they use heavy darts" This is on wikipedia right now, they even have a picture of some all metallic mini-dart next to it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossbow I have corrected this twice but it keeps getting re-corrected , must be some kid who has never used a crossbow outside of assassins creed??

Sort of a strange rant for a fairly decent sunday arvo isnt it but there you go. :)

Sorry mickb, but I'm going to call you out on that.

If you know anything about crossbows, I would suggest that your knowledge is somewhat limited.

Just as there are Norinco 22LR rifles which are widely used as an entry point into shooting, there are also the likes of Anschutz, Walther, Grunig & Elmiger etc. at the upper end of the range.

WRT crossbows, I do know that the crossbow bolt as described in the Wikipedia reference is totally correct. If you chose to look at the last image on that description you will see a crossbow of the type with which I am familiar. In that configuration they are used in extremely competitive 10mtr 3P type shooting, predominantly in Europe, and are ruthless in exposing errors in ones technique and competency, just as an air rifle exposes similar faults in rimfire/centrefire technique.

Take a very close look at the image provided in the link below and you will see EXACTLY the type of bolt to which you object.
Worse, is that your "knowledge and expertise" on this matter riles you so much that you take it upon yourself and attempt to alter information that is correct. Is it any wonder that you have not succeeded?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... iessen.jpg

Take a look at some of the top products here http://www.winzeler.ch/de/



We'll I'll be ..... I think we've found out who's been re-editing the page. :sarcasm:

That bolt's a bit of an oddball thing,

If I were writing a Wikipedia page on crossbows, I wouldn't be using that bolt as number 1 example of crossbow bolts look like.
I'd be using something a little more common and reserving the 10m target style bolt for a subsection or at least show a range of bolts in my article.

I'd also be labeling each example of crossbow bolts with a brand, type, use description to avoid issues like the op encountered.

I think that the 10m target bolt has missed it's mark (pun intended) as an example due to its limited usage within a niche market.

:drinks:
Gun control requires concentration and a steady hand.


on_one_wheel LIVES LEFT: 3..BONUS POINTS: 8
User avatar
on_one_wheel
Brigadier
Brigadier
 
Posts: 2294
South Australia

Re: Poor quality articles and blogs

Post by No1_49er » 14 May 2019, 4:34 pm

on_one_wheel wrote:
We'll I'll be ..... I think we've found out who's been re-editing the page. :sarcasm:

That bolt's a bit of an oddball thing,

If I were writing a Wikipedia page on crossbows, I wouldn't be using that bolt as number 1 example of crossbow bolts look like.
I'd be using something a little more common and reserving the 10m target style bolt for a subsection or at least show a range of bolts in my article.

I'd also be labeling each example of crossbow bolts with a brand, type, use description to avoid issues like the op encountered.

I think that the 10m target bolt has missed it's mark (pun intended) as an example due to its limited usage within a niche market.

:drinks:

Wrong assumption!
And why would the 10 mtr version be reserved for a sub-section. Is there any other use for a crossbow? :sarcasm:
Until OP included that Wikipedia link in his post, I was totally unaware of it. No need to go looking because I know what they are.

In the target shooting sport, the bolts are fired at targets having a lead backstop. And it's not a "cheap" sport such as air rifle might be, ammunition wise. A 30mtr bolt might cost something like $150, so not something to treat as a throwaway!

IIRC, the 10mtr version was around (equiv') AU$5,000 and the 30mtr ~ 7,000.
A little YouTube video for a look see. Turn the sound off - it's in German https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVicLfsItSo

Have a go. It'll teach you how to shoot.
Except that you have to get past the fvktard legislation :thumbsdown:
Proud member of "the powerful gun lobby" of Australia :)
No1_49er
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 444
Queensland

Re: Poor quality articles and blogs

Post by No1_49er » 14 May 2019, 4:39 pm

Still interested? Here's a current price list http://www.winzeler.ch/de/products_order.php
Proud member of "the powerful gun lobby" of Australia :)
No1_49er
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 444
Queensland

Re: Poor quality articles and blogs

Post by mickb » 16 May 2019, 1:22 pm

No1_49er wrote:If you know anything about crossbows, I would suggest that your knowledge is somewhat limited.


Limited to medieval, historical examples, medieval target compeition and hunting crossbows for 20 years, have also made my own prior to the 2004 law changes in QLD when they become a licenced weapon . There are many bolts I am not aware of no, I would not be able to recognize vetenirary sampling darts, the more niche competition darts , all the various historical examples in museums though I have seen a lot, nor all the specific paramilitary heads either. But neither would you.

The point is neither of us would put less known examples as general representations of a crossbow projectile either, if we wanted a balanced article.

Anymore than on an article on rifle projectiles we would put just a picture of a flechette...

Just as there are Norinco 22LR rifles which are widely used as an entry point into shooting, there are also the likes of Anschutz, Walther, Grunig & Elmiger etc. at the upper end of the range.


Again if you doing an article on these, would your projectile picture be 22LR ratshot?

Maybe a wiki article on shotshells, just 1 pic with the innards of a birdscare blank, 22Lr ratshot?

WRT crossbows, I do know that the crossbow bolt as described in the Wikipedia reference is totally correct. If you chose to look at the last image on that description you will see a crossbow of the type with which I am familiar. In that configuration they are used in extremely competitive 10mtr 3P type shooting, predominantly in Europe, and are ruthless in exposing errors in ones technique and competency, just as an air rifle exposes similar faults in rimfire/centrefire technique.
Take a very close look at the image provided in the link below and you will see EXACTLY the type of bolt to which you object.
Worse, is that your "knowledge and expertise" on this matter riles you so much that you take it upon yourself and attempt to alter information that is correct. Is it any wonder that you have not succeeded?



The reason I had not succeeded is because niche guys are another group you dont want modifying articles for the general public.

I mean would you consider it a satisfactory article if the only picture of a crossbow projectile was the animal dart? With a vet explaining how important and common and expensive the darts are, and any time someone adds or puts a more balanced picture up, it is replaced by his item again?

We could it change it right now, the public logs on and goes yeah I guess that's what they fired in the day at each other. Knights in armour and villagers trying to collect their blubber for vetinary purposes. "hey I'm thinking of getting into hunting, can't wait to get one of those military grapple hooks attachments the wiki projectile shows, because they guy who put that up really knows how to do an article on this stuff"


Anyway for the record what I wanted edited and changed was this rubbish, over and over. I have added my own comments in bold.

Projectiles

The arrow-like projectiles of a crossbow are called crossbow bolts. (actually no, and another part of the article even already states you can call them arrows, quarrels and darts etc) These are usually much shorter than arrows, but can be several times heavier. There is an optimum weight for bolts to achieve maximum kinetic energy, which varies depending on the strength and characteristics of the crossbow, but most could pass through common mail(throwaway fragment comment, and not correct either). Crossbow bolts can be fitted with a variety of heads, some with sickle-shaped heads to cut rope or rigging(another incredibly obscure reference); but the most common today is a four-sided point called a quarrel( this is untidy. A quarrel is more the whole arrow and while it is derived from the french word indicating 4 square points, it is not the most common today. It is probably an incorrect reference to broadhead, which is not 4 pointed, but may be 4 bladed, but may also be multiple blade number or type. AND field points are probably the most common type anyway). A highly specialized type of bolt is employed to collect blubber biopsy samples used in biology research.(the darts again lol)
Last edited by mickb on 16 May 2019, 2:27 pm, edited 4 times in total.
mickb
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 181
Other

Re: Poor quality articles and blogs

Post by No1_49er » 16 May 2019, 2:01 pm

mickb wrote:I also tried to quickly reference some of the types of hunting crossbow, which are by far the most common in the world today, mentioning recurve and reverse draw. Then the much needed and missing quick blurb on common projectiles, particularly Broadheads(lol) also darts, hunting, and specialised types. All to no avail. Its misquoted quarrels and bolts folks, thats what we learn these days. It doesn't matter if its not right, as long as people 'particupate' I guess.

A read of the Wikipedia article seems to cover a good range of ancient and modern types of crossbow.

If you feel so passionately about your particular type of crossbow (hunting?) why don't you write and submit your own Wikipedia entry?
Perhaps it's as well though that you contemplate how big this article will be?
I have interests in all sorts of arms, and to better understand their histories I have a rather large library of books, some of which extend to several hundreds of pages on one make, or maybe 10 - 20 for one model.

As a general entry, I think Wikipedia is reasonable; a stepping stone to other sources of information.
What other entries in Wikipedia have you seen that extend to 10 or more pages for a niche interest?
Proud member of "the powerful gun lobby" of Australia :)
No1_49er
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 444
Queensland

Re: Poor quality articles and blogs

Post by mickb » 16 May 2019, 2:25 pm

No1_49er wrote:
mickb wrote:I also tried to quickly reference some of the types of hunting crossbow, which are by far the most common in the world today, mentioning recurve and reverse draw. Then the much needed and missing quick blurb on common projectiles, particularly Broadheads(lol) also darts, hunting, and specialised types. All to no avail. Its misquoted quarrels and bolts folks, thats what we learn these days. It doesn't matter if its not right, as long as people 'particupate' I guess.

A read of the Wikipedia article seems to cover a good range of ancient and modern types of crossbow.

If you feel so passionately about your particular type of crossbow (hunting?) why don't you write and submit your own Wikipedia entry?
Perhaps it's as well though that you contemplate how big this article will be?
I have interests in all sorts of arms, and to better understand their histories I have a rather large library of books, some of which extend to several hundreds of pages on one make, or maybe 10 - 20 for one model.

As a general entry, I think Wikipedia is reasonable; a stepping stone to other sources of information.
What other entries in Wikipedia have you seen that extend to 10 or more pages for a niche interest?



My problem wasn't with the articles entirety, it was the projectiles in that case. And the fact it resisted all attempts to improve it. That blurb is terrible.

I dont feel 'passionately' about one style of crossbows either, I like and have owned several. Not the level of target bow you do admittedly.

I agree wikipedia is still a good resource. My post was about what I see as a decline in article quality. Too many authors and to be honest, those who learn everythingwatching and commenting youtube videos( aka mean age probably under 18) are now having a chop, literally.
mickb
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 181
Other

Re: Poor quality articles and blogs

Post by sungazer » 19 May 2019, 8:05 pm

I agree a lot of article on places like Accurate Shooter yes they may have a good story once a year. However the other stories have the potential to be good informative articles but they end up being puff pieces with no real conclusion or data just really click bait stuff and enough infor to get you to stay on the page long enough to make the advertises feel like they are getting good value.
sungazer
Major
Major
 
Posts: 1689
Other


Back to top
 
Return to Off topic - General conversation