The other night, I was telling a friend about the pike2bike.org site; we're looking around for cool camping trips for the summer and this seems to fit the bill. He asked me where in the hell I find all these things (I regularly send him links to anything that looks interesting), and I started to show him, as an example, how I got from Wikipedia (article on folding bikes) to these forums, to purchasing a folding bike (Downtube).

The Downtube brand of folding bikes was no longer listed in the Wikipedia article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folding_bicycle

After digging around on the article history, I found that it had been deleted from the list of Folding bicycle manufacturers on March 25th. The edit had been made anonymously, from the IP address: 210.192.33.136. I can't tell whether this IP address is a business, somebody's home, or a proxy. This IP address has only made two edits on the entirety of Wikipedia, both of them in the article on folding bicycles. A few quick google searches traced the IP address to Taipei, Taiwan.


This edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Folding_bicycle&diff=prev&oldid=36163174) removed references to folding bikes being popular in Britain and Asia, but no so much in North America.... and it elevated "Dahon" from a specialized manufacturer of folding bicycles to a "major bicycle manufacturer".
This edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Folding_bicycle&diff=prev&oldid=45436954) deleted a duplicate link to Montague, and also deleted Downtube and Riese-und-Muller (Birdy brand).

Now, the link to Downtube had included a perhaps too-enthusiastic description, at least for an encyclopedia-type article:
Downtube - very high "bang-for-the-buck" folding bikes; the DT VIII FS full suspension model has no rival in it's price class
I can understand removing the descriptive praise, in order to make the article more even-handed. Removing manufacturers altogether from the article seems antagonistic, though, especially since these are bikes that are still manufactured and for-sale.... it wasn't just cleanup of dead links.

If no one else cleans up the article in the next few days, I'll create a Wikipedia account and do it myself. For the time being, I'm leaving it as-is, so that people can take a look for themselves, even if they're unfamiliar with the history and compare-differences functions of Wikipedia.

Yes, I'd noticed that edit too and was curious about the history behind it. As you say, the original Downtube note seemed like a blatant plug for the brand and I could see editing that, but not excising all mention of Downtube.

I edited it as you suggested. I personally think that Downtube should be responsible for it's own web presence. If Doc Yan is reading this he should create a Downtube and Dr Yan page on Wikipedia.

YOu're not supposed to promote yourself and your products on Wikipedia

That rule is so routinely abused on any Wikipedia topic touching entertainment media, it's the exception. Wiki any current movie title.... they read as if written by a publicist for the movie.

So what are we to assume? Someone with nefarious purposes or intent deleted Downtube from Wikipedia? It does seem deliberate though.

I don't think there's anything conclusive, but I personally find it interesting that the changes were made by someone in Taiwan (or someone pretending to be in Taiwan?).

It seems like an attempt to hurt competitors rather than to make the article more accurate or more informative.

Right at the moment, I'm assuming that it's by someone in the business, or with an overzealous loyalty to a particular brand. This is a shame, because my impression of the folding bike community reminded me rather of the open-source software movement. People are generally open and friendly, and willing to point newcomers out to brands based more on individual needs rather than on what brand they have the most invested in (personally or financially). Each person who tries and enjoys a folding bicycle is seen as something of a victory, overcoming the typical prejudices against these funky, practical little machines.

I can understand if a manufacturer tried to gain a little extra recognition by adding information about their product, but deleting references to competitors seems poor form.

I was somewhat suspicious myself of the praise that the original article put on Downtube bikes, but it seems to have been put in the article by Af895, one of the members from here. When I began reading up in these forums to learn more about folding bikes, I came across posts of his where he mentioned owning a KHS and a restored Raleigh 20; ironically, not a Downtube at all. So that seems to suggest that the praise was genuine. This guy (Chris, I think?) has contributed enough on bikeforums and on the Wikipedia article that I don't in the least think of him as an undercover advertiser.

Af895 used to post regularly here, but he has been awol for a while. I remember that he mentioned updating the Wiki entry for folding bikes a while ago.

The more recent deletions are interesting - but this happens on Wiki all the time. Vested interests (be they private or corporate) have infiltrated (and, to my mind, denuded this resource of much of its worth). I would advise people to consult the folding society, if they wanted to learn more about folding bikes.

How about A to B, that bastion of impartiality. I especially like the kind and sympathetic treatment of the Merc. It's as if the Viking long boats of William were once again on Sussex shores looking for Harold's head.

I think the Wikipedia community does a pretty good job of monitoring and correcting vandalism, and reversing political edits. It's pretty easy to revert a page to a previous acceptible form. Anyone on this forum could add the Wikipedia page on folding bikes to their watchlist and get notified every time it's edited; and if necessary correct any problems. If the vandals find their labour is destroyed within minutes each time they screw up a page, they quickly lose interest.

How about A to B, that bastion of impartiality. I especially like the kind and sympathetic treatment of the Merc. It's as if the Viking long boats of William were once again on Sussex shores looking for Harold's head.

You took the words out of my mouth there. The review was a proper axe job. I'm hammering my Merc day by day and it has held up well.

You took the words out of my mouth there. The review was a proper axe job. I'm hammering my Merc day by day and it has held up well.

Words out of your mouth? What were the chances, two people independantly forming a Battle of Hastings metaphor!

Must be a full moon :D

A to B have mauled (but more often, constructively criticised) many bikes over the years, not just the Merc. I like the mag, in spite of its peccadilloes and eccentricities.

The preference for Brompton as the supreme multi-modal commuter has been enshrined in A to B for years. Whether this has skewed their editorial judgement is open to debate, but I am of the opinion that they always try to be fair, but, like most us, fail from time to time.

A to B have mauled (but more often, constructively criticised) many bikes over the years, not just the Merc. I like the mag, in spite of its peccadilloes and eccentricities.

The preference for Brompton as the supreme multi-modal commuter has been enshrined in A to B for years. Whether this has skewed their editorial judgement is open to debate, but I am of the opinion that they always try to be fair, but, like most us, fail from time to time.

It's possible they had a bad Merc, or that Bromptons are by comparison unbelievably wonderful (though having ridden one briefly when I met a guy on one while riding my Merc and swapped bikes with him for part of a journey, I didn't think so), but to say that nothing works on the Merc is dubious.

I've documented minor niggles(*), but I've done 273 miles on mine in about a month and I love it more as each day passes. Like any bike being given the works day in and day out you need to be prepared to sort out the odd eccentricity it presents, but that's par for the course, I'd say. The other thing is that the fully equipped Merc bought for £330 like mine, saves about £400 on the price of a similarly specified Brompton. Since the other Taiwanese and Brompton licenced version sells for around $240 in the Far East, Brompton are plain and simple charging too much.

The A to B review will forever make me cautious of anything they publish. Once caught out slandering a product, how can you ever trust them?


(*)
Minor niggles:

As delivered my gear cable was jammed.
As delivered the brake blocks were mis adjusted.
Seat post is so oily as delivered that you need to degrease it to stop it sliding down as you ride.
In heavy use with front and back luggage on a camping trip with rough roads I had to tighten a rear spoke which began clicking as the wheel revolved. I had run at speed through some bad potholes on hilly descents. I was carrying sixty pounds of luggage. The all up weight of the outfit with me on it was 253 pounds.

Apologies for the thread-jacking...

but to say that nothing works on the Merc is dubious.

I don’t think they quite went that far, but yes, the write-up was excoriating. If they did have a particularly dire example (quite possible), I am not surprised they inveighed against it. That said, I am glad that your perceptions of the Merc are far more positive and that you have posted rejoinders on this forum. Why not write to them?

It will be interesting to see how A to B review the higher specification model that Wav acquired from Merc.

The A to B review will forever make me cautious of anything they publish. Once caught out slandering a product, how can you ever trust them?

“Slander” is a false defamatory oral statement – they are at least innocent of that accusation!

I don’t think they quite went that far, but yes, the write-up was excoriating. If they did have a particularly dire example (quite possible), I am not surprised they inveighed against it.


Exact words from A to B review:

"The reality is a bike that weighs 13.2kg (heavier than the steel Brompton!), on which almost nothing works properly - the saddle slips down, the brakes barely function, the front carrier block is a bit dodgy, and the cables get in a tangle when you fold it up. If offered one at the ludicrous price of £499 - or any other price - just say no."

The above is written above a red summary describing the Merc as a "Dysfunctional pirate copy".


On the weight issue, it is equipped with rack and rollers, kickstand, dynamo set (with lights) chain protector, and mudguards. I don't know what a similarly equipped Brompton would tip the scales at, but it would cetainly tip the bank balance a great deal more than the Merc, which also has a carry bag and front luggage as well as a perfectly functional mounting block (not in the least 'dodgy', as A to B would have it.

I'm sure the Brompton is outstanding, it's just that this little copy is pretty good too.

“Slander” is a false defamatory oral statement – they are at least innocent of that accusation!

Thanks for sharpening my use of language. If the statements were false and written, it would be libel, and not slander. I stand corrected.

on which almost nothing works properly

You were just missing an adverb then!

At £330 or so in the UK the Merc does appear to offer good value for money.

I'm sure the Brompton is outstanding, it's just that this little copy is pretty good too.

As an ex-Brompton owner, I could never describe the bike as outstanding - the fold maybe, but not the all-round package.

Af895 used to post regularly here, but he has been awol for a while. I remember that he mentioned updating the Wiki entry for folding bikes a while ago.

The more recent deletions are interesting - but this happens on Wiki all the time. Vested interests (be they private or corporate) have infiltrated (and, to my mind, denuded this resource of much of its worth). I would advise people to consult the folding society, if they wanted to learn more about folding bikes.

This is quite unfortunate, however we are getting accustomed to these type of actions. A little while back bikeforums had a fake poster (someone with muliple names) writing negative things about the Downtube.

Ultimately, we are very happy that the improper acts were corrected. A big thank you to bookishboy for noticing and mentioning it.

Thanks again,
Yan

The Merc is a good bike and so is the DT. They both are pretty good to great values. The Merc has a lighter frame. The DT is built like a tank. I like them both. The DT wasn't expensive and has been pretty much bulletproof for my kids. It will save me a fortune in time instead of buying a bike every year or two.

As for the Brompton as F&T pointed out, I can't say the bike is outstanding. The comments A to B leveled at Merc should have also been applied to the Brompton as well. In some ways the copy is better than the original! The brakes for sure are no worse and the Merc6 is far far FAR better!

The Merc is a good bike and so is the DT. They both are pretty good to great values. The Merc has a lighter frame. The DT is built like a tank. I like them both. The DT wasn't expensive and has been pretty much bulletproof for my kids. It will save me a fortune in time instead of buying a bike every year or two.

As for the Brompton as F&T pointed out, I can't say the bike is outstanding. The comments A to B leveled at Merc should have also been applied to the Brompton as well. In some ways the copy is better than the original! The brakes for sure are no worse and the Merc6 is far far FAR better!

I've just had an email exchange with the A to B reviewer. He just will not accept that he has written a bad review, persistently referring to the Merc as a 'crude copy'. Either he tested a very different machine or he is a very partial commentator. Of course he could just be nuts. He reckons I'm just angry that I paid 2/3 the price of a Brompton for a crude copy with no backup or spares.... Bollocks on all grounds. I'm delighted with what I got for £330. I also don't like to see a person purporting to produce objective reviews but giving the appearance that he is defending from competition a company he has worked for and obviously has an emotional connection with.

EDIT:

I just looked at the A to B page which used to hold the review, and it has been removed.

I remember reading the other thread where AtoB responded about being Brompton "cronies" I think the review was from some time ago, at least a year? Is it possible that they reviewed an older version of the Merc?

If they are honest reviewers, and honestly were unimpressed with a "beta" version of the Merc, then the last thing we should ask of them is to change their opinion.

A good solution might be to ask the reviewer if he'd be willing to take a look at it again; and if the new model shows significant improvement, then put in a new review and update the old one. A new sentence saying something like, "Note: we've since reviewed a newer-model Merc, and you can read our impressions here(link)."

Also: Is AtoB a closed magazine? If they accept guest submissions, send in one of your own as a satisfied Merc owner.

Hi Bookishboy. Thanks for your points.

See the edit above. They appear to have removed the review from the website, unless I'm looking at the wrong page, which I don't believe I am.

I have no axe to grind at all regarding Merc or their company. I'm an experienced and committed cyclist with an interest in how things are made and finished. I'm not an engineer, though I have a lifelong interest in how things work, maintaining them, and in owning things that don't and won't break. Above all, I hate unfairness, and attack it like a pit bull when I come across it. That is what is motivating me here.

Oh, I feel exactly the same way. But I'm also keen to see a historical record of a company's progress. If Merc was releasing bikes that were a bit crap at first, that should still be noted. I'd be interested in seeing opinions from folks who owned/tested the model that AtoB reviewed.

I think that the main problems about the review (I read it too, some time back) were:

The use of the word "pirate". That's a fightin' word, and very well could be libel. If the Brompton patents have expired, then it's at worst a "knockoff".

The indefinite (timewise) advice at the tail end of the article: "If offered one at the ludicrous price of £499 - or any other price - just say no." It doesn't really allow for the possibility that the Merc may improve future offerings.

I don't like unfairness either, it irks me. I'm not a Downtube cronie, but I'm pretty darn happy with the bike that I've been sold, and I don't enjoy seeing the company/Yan get pissed on.

Why don't you try submitting a review of the Merc to the Folding Society, for example? Why get stuck on AtoB as if they owe you anything? Why not just add a Merc link to the Wikipedia entry? A bike's meant for riding; forums are just time sucks in between work and rain. Don't let any past, present, or future "shenanigans" get you down.

That's good advice.

I thought from looking at the Downtube on the Internet that it looked like a hell of a good deal. I'm glad your enjoying it.

Have a good day and keep riding...