"The 33"-Road Bike Racing - Guess Wiki's next error about Eddy

A couple of weeks ago the Wikipedia article on Merckx said he did not finish the 1977 TDF. That wsa wrong. It has been corrected. Now the article includes

[quote]Tour de France debut in 1969, Merckx immediately won the yellow jersey (overall leader), the green jersey (best sprinter) and the red polka-dotted jersey ("King of the Mountains" - best climber in the mountain stages). No other cyclist has achieved this trifecta in the Tour de France, and only Laurent Jalabert has been able to match this feat at the Grand Tour level, in the 1995 Vuelta.[quote]

I guess technically one could say Eddy matched it in the Giro, but one other rider also walk away from one of the Grand torus with all three jerseys BEFORE Jalabert.

Two questions. Who and how could someone know about Jalabert and not the other rider.

But what I'm really wondering about is what they will get wrong next? And will it match the faix paix on Vrs. where they said Eddy won the 1969 Giro?

That's why it's a community driven site. Since you know the correct information you can put that into that page. Just register for free and add the correct info.

That's why it's a community driven site. Since you know the correct information you can put that into that page. Just register for free and add the correct info.

I'm convinced that velonews.com has more errors than Wikipedia, and they pay people to write. Their articles are riddled with errors, mostly typos and the like. The most recent, and one of my favorites, was yesterday in their review of the new Madone:

"Finally, the fork is 1.5-inch diameter at the top of the fork crown and the standard 1.25-inch diameter where the stem clamps on."

Somebody must have pointed it out to them, because it's since been fixed.

That's why it's a community driven site. Since you know the correct information you can put that into that page. Just register for free and add the correct info.
And people with incorrect info can post as well. Just because it is on wiki does not mean it is true. I thought it was widely known that wiki was just as much garbage as truth.

That's why it's a community driven site. Since you know the correct information you can put that into that page. Just register for free and add the correct info.

Don't think so. If it were a case of cleaning things up once perhaps, but this error is new and I have a feeling it will get cleaned up and a newer error will take its place.

And people with incorrect info can post as well. Just because it is on wiki does not mean it is true. I thought it was widely known that wiki was just as much garbage as truth.

Uh, sure but it's accuracy was found to be the same as the Encyclopedia Britannica.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5055388

Most errors that crop up are found and corrected within a short period of time. That doesn't mean errors don't occur, but they're usually fixed fairly quickly and easily via discussion pages about some subject. it's a surprisingly good system and as shown in the study, as accurate as a well respected encyclopedia.

Don't think so. If it were a case of cleaning things up once perhaps, but this error is new and I have a feeling it will get cleaned up and a newer error will take its place.

:rolleyes: Then why don't YOU post the correct information. Or at least start a discussion about the page on wikipedia pointing the error out? Just complaining about it from afar is a waste of time.

Uh, sure but it's accuracy was found to be the same as the Encyclopedia Britannica.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5055388

Most errors that crop up are found and corrected within a short period of time. That doesn't mean errors don't occur, but they're usually fixed fairly quickly and easily via discussion pages about some subject. it's a surprisingly good system and as shown in the study, as accurate as a well respected encyclopedia.

Very misleading. Your link is for science articles and they count errors where the information in the respected encyclopedia has information that is out of date as being the same as things that are simply wrong. Wiki is fast, it is not accurate.

i find wiki to be a tremendous source of information. but, no source can be completely error free, wiki especially. one thing they do a good job of is to cite to their sources. i could read dozens of news articles to get the same or less information in a typical wiki entry.

Very misleading. Your link is for science articles and they count errors where the information in the respected encyclopedia has information that is out of date as being the same as things that are simply wrong. Wiki is fast, it is not accurate.

+1, this is why most universities have banned it. It's the research equivalent of postman, and a lot of the site is plagiarized, and wrong.

ctrl-c, ctrl-v:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilberto_Simoni

http://www.answers.com/topic/gilberto-simoni

+1, this is why most universities have banned it. It's the research equivalent of postman, and a lot of the site is plagiarized, and wrong.


What universities have banned it or do you just mean banned citing it as a source?
I don't think there are many college level courses where you can cite ANY encyclopedia.


Also


This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)

And people with incorrect info can post as well. Just because it is on wiki does not mean it is true. I thought it was widely known that wiki was just as much garbage as truth.

Not at all...it's very good. I do a little editing on wikipedia. There are many safeguards. You can set up alerts so if someone edits a page you're interested in, you are notified and can check it out. There are shortcuts for reverting a page to a previous version, so you can quickly undo vandalism. Each entry has an associated discussion page where people with differing views can try to hash out their disagreements and agree on common text. Senior editors can freeze page content and flag it as disputed if need be.

+1, this is why most universities have banned it. It's the research equivalent of postman, and a lot of the site is plagiarized, and wrong.

ctrl-c, ctrl-v:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilberto_Simoni

http://www.answers.com/topic/gilberto-simoni

What universities let you use an encyclopedia? In high school if I'd used an encyclopedia as a source I'd have gotten an F (heck I think even in junior high it was strongly frowned upon).