I added some stuff about FPs and FP inks to Wikipedia

Well... Here is Wikipedia's article about Fountain pens:

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

I added those links pointing to articles about fountain pen
manufacturers and fountain pen inks. BTW does anybody know, if Dunhill
makes fountain pens, too?

Most links to fountain pen inks are non-functional. If you click those
red links, you get to editing pages of those non-existing pages.

Somebody has made an article about Parker Quink, already:

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

I have edited it a little bit. But I started articles about Sheaffer
Skrip and Pelikan 4001:

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelikan_4001

That's it! If you can add some information about those topics, feel free
to write it down there. I have mostly good at adding WWW-links, but
writing "real information" is harder for me.

Always remember: Anybody can edit Wikipedia articles, including you!


--
Juhapekka "naula" Tolvanen * http colon slash slash iki dot fi slash juhtolv
"Katkeemaan ei sitä mitenkään saa. Turhempaa ei oo olemassakaan. Huomaa vaan
kun joku sanoo jotain sellaista, mitä kuulla haluaa. Ei haittaa onko edes
tottakaan. Oikeuttaa kalleintansa tuhlaamaan." Apulanta

Always remember: Anybody can edit Wikipedia articles, including you!

Really? I did not know that. How do they control accuracy? What
would stop some nutter from revising Thomas Jefferson's section to make
Jefferson sound like a fundamentalist, or putting in the revisionist's
opinion on Hitler that he was completely unaware of the Holocaust?

How does Wikipedia work? If anyone can edit it, then Wikipedia is not
a reliable research source.

"Nick Name" writes:

Always remember: Anybody can edit Wikipedia articles, including you!

Really? I did not know that. How do they control accuracy? What would
stop some nutter from revising Thomas Jefferson's section to make
Jefferson sound like a fundamentalist, or putting in the revisionist's
opinion on Hitler that he was completely unaware of the Holocaust?

First who notice such vandalism can put any former revision of that
article back. All articles are versioned, so all revisions are always
available.

It is even possible to ban certain IP-addresses, if needed.

How does Wikipedia work?

RTFM

If anyone can edit it, then Wikipedia is not a reliable research
source.

If enough people edit it and discuss about articles they are editing,
some kind of concensus is reached sooner or later. As you can see in
each article, there is also that tab called "discuss". That is the way
Wikipedia (or any other Wiki system) evolves.


--
Juhapekka "naula" Tolvanen * http colon slash slash iki dot fi slash juhtolv
"Katkeemaan ei sitä mitenkään saa. Turhempaa ei oo olemassakaan. Huomaa vaan
kun joku sanoo jotain sellaista, mitä kuulla haluaa. Ei haittaa onko edes
tottakaan. Oikeuttaa kalleintansa tuhlaamaan." Apulanta

Nick Name wrote:

How does Wikipedia work? If anyone can edit it, then Wikipedia is not
a reliable research source.


Ahhh, a voice of reason that gets to the crux of the matter. As an
example of the inherent weaknesses of Wikipedia, and with absolutely
no disrespect intended, someone working on an ink article who
doesn't know Dunhill doesn't manufacture their own ink or whether
they make FPs is an excellent example of the problems with this
approach. Without peer review by "experts" (which I am not), there
are bound to be errors propagated and perpetrated throughout.

In my opinion, those attempting serious research should steer clear
of Wikipedia because of its weaknesses. Likewise, those willing to
submit the results of their serious research should steer clear
because others with less knowledge can and will make a shambles of
it. But these are just my thoughts. Take them for what they're worth.

Mark Z.

mz wrote:

SNIP

In my opinion, those attempting serious research should steer clear of
Wikipedia because of its weaknesses. Likewise, those willing to submit
the results of their serious research should steer clear because others
with less knowledge can and will make a shambles of it. But these are
just my thoughts. Take them for what they're worth.

Mark Z.


Yet most articles found in wikipedia are correct on the facts they
present. Several studies have been done on the "quality" of wikipedia
including someone deliberately adding errors just to see whether
people would notice. None of the studies that I'm aware of has shown
wikipedia to be significantly worse than other sources on the net.
(I still remember how one typo in an encyclopedia changed the B25
bombers that raided Tokyo in WW2 into B52's something that still
pops up in books, documentaries etc. Even saw a flamewar on the
subject a while ago...)

The idea behind wiki's is to have a community create a web of
information. Some can abuse their access to the information, but
with just a bit more sophistication people can change DNS records
such that a request for cnn is served from a basement somewhere.
Does this mean that you shouldn't trust any information on the net?

As for 'religious' wars about the facts in wiki articles, they happen.
Just as in real life people tend to see 'facts' differently, I have
followed some pages being editted back and forth over a few weeks
(really funny btw) This is not really different from what you may
find in books or even academic journals especially if you get your
information from secondary sources (e.g. newspapers.)

At least wiki's allow people to rectify any errors they find (true
or not) and let a community decide on the verity of the facts and
their presentation(!) So I would tell people to go ahead and use
it (in the knowledge that the information may be biased) and add
new items (knowing that other people may add their views.) There
is some safety in numbers here.

As for fountain pens, there should be enough expertise in this
group to at least weed out all the glaring mistakes (even if
some pencilhead or bic lover may rewrite it all later on ;-)


E.

mz writes:

Without peer review by "experts" (which I am not), there are bound to
be errors propagated and perpetrated throughout.

There is at least one solution for that: The more "experts" participate
editing of Wikipedia articles, the better.

In my opinion, those attempting serious research should steer clear of
Wikipedia because of its weaknesses. Likewise, those willing to submit
the results of their serious research should steer clear because
others with less knowledge can and will make a shambles of.

Yeah, right. Can you point same examples of such Wikipedia articles that
somebody with less knowledge has made shambles of? If not, then just
STFU.

But these are just my thoughts. Take them for what they're worth.

I consider them expression of ignorance.


--
Juhapekka "naula" Tolvanen * http colon slash slash iki dot fi slash juhtolv
"Katkeemaan ei sitä mitenkään saa. Turhempaa ei oo olemassakaan. Huomaa vaan
kun joku sanoo jotain sellaista, mitä kuulla haluaa. Ei haittaa onko edes
tottakaan. Oikeuttaa kalleintansa tuhlaamaan." Apulanta

STFU.
I consider them expression of ignorance.

Well, that destroys your credibility. You might have argued the facts
involved, but chose to go ad hominem instead. I hope you are not a
representative "expert."

Examples of Wikipedia error: "It is speculated, that J. Herbin is
actual manufacturer of fountain pen inks of Omas." Wrong, and
speculation has no place in an encyclopedia.

Another whopper of an inaccuracy: "Fountain pens are widely regarded to
be the best tools for writing or drawing with ink on paper." No, the
ballpoint is widely regarded by the vast majority of the population as
the best tool for writing with ink on paper. The preference for the
fountain pen is highly limited and esoteric in comparison. Any attempt
to say the fountain pen is qualitatively better is strictly the
subjective opinion of fountain pen enthusiasts, and not an objective
fact.

Yet another: "Fountain pens from Aurora, Hero, Duke and Uranus accept
the same cartridges and converters that Parker uses and vice versa."
No, the Aurora cartridge is slightly different, and often has to be
forced a bit to fit a Parker, and vice versa. Furthermore, the Hero I
have takes international cartridges, not Parker.

The point MZ and I have been making stands. Wikipedia is structurally
prone to error due to the ready input of self-styled "experts" who are
anything but.

"Nick Name" writes:

Examples of Wikipedia error: "It is speculated, that J. Herbin is
actual manufacturer of fountain pen inks of Omas." Wrong, and
speculation has no place in an encyclopedia.

Okay, I'll remove that. That was my addition.

Another whopper of an inaccuracy: "Fountain pens are widely regarded
to be the best tools for writing or drawing with ink on paper." No,
the ballpoint is widely regarded by the vast majority of the
population as the best tool for writing with ink on paper. The
preference for the fountain pen is highly limited and esoteric in
comparison. Any attempt to say the fountain pen is qualitatively
better is strictly the subjective opinion of fountain pen enthusiasts,
and not an objective fact.

Maybe that part of the article was originally written by somebody who is
a little bit too entusiatic about fountain pens. But so what? There are
other Wikipedians that can remove "subjective opinions" and other such
crap, if it ever slips in. So, there.

If it says "widely regarded" it does not mean same as "most (in the
sense of "over 50%") people think that". And BTW that paragraph
continues like this:

"However, they can be more expensive, harder to maintain, and more
fragile than a ballpoint pen. In addition, they cannot be used
with the various oil- and particle-based inks (such as India ink)
prized by artists, as can a dip pen, reed, or quill."

Yet another: "Fountain pens from Aurora, Hero, Duke and Uranus accept
the same cartridges and converters that Parker uses and vice versa."
No, the Aurora cartridge is slightly different, and often has to be
forced a bit to fit a Parker, and vice versa.

It may be too pedantic to mention that in that Wikipedia article.

Furthermore, the Hero I have takes international cartridges, not
Parker.

So, you have one fountain pen of Hero that takes international
cartridges. That does not mean all fountain pens of Hero take
international cartridges.

In fact, when I wrote about those cartridges, I asked before that from
hisnibs.com about cartridges that fountain pens they sell use. Exact
answer from Norman Haase was this: "Hero, Duke and Uranus (all from
China), use Parker-style in probably 95% of their models, but each brand
has a few that take international carts instead.". But I thought it
would be too pedantic to mention about those few exceptions.

The point MZ and I have been making stands. Wikipedia is structurally
prone to error due to the ready input of self-styled "experts" who are
anything but.

Once again: If there are errors, even you can fix them. It is more
usefull, than whining about errors in newsgroups. And as I said, each
article has its own discussion page. It is right place for discussion
about that certain article.

Anyway, now I'll go and make those fixes. I guess you are not up to it.
Meanwhile you can read about errors of Encyclopedia Britannica!:

http://members.cox.net/kevin82/eberrors.htm
http://www.infidels.org/library/hist...ritannica.html


--
Juhapekka "naula" Tolvanen * http colon slash slash iki dot fi slash juhtolv
"Katkeemaan ei sitä mitenkään saa. Turhempaa ei oo olemassakaan. Huomaa vaan
kun joku sanoo jotain sellaista, mitä kuulla haluaa. Ei haittaa onko edes
tottakaan. Oikeuttaa kalleintansa tuhlaamaan." Apulanta

Juhapekka Tolvanen wrote:

snip


Yeah, right. Can you point same examples of such Wikipedia articles that
somebody with less knowledge has made shambles of? If not, then just

Here are a few more Nick Name didn't mention.

1.) The FP article states:

"At this time fountain pens were almost all filled by unscrewing a
portion of the hollow barrel or holder and inserting the ink by
means of an eyedropper. This was a slow and messy system.
Additionally, fountain pens tended to leak inside their caps and at
the joint where the barrel opened for filling. Now that the
materials problems had been overcome and the flow of ink while
writing had been regulated, the next problems to be solved were the
creation of a simple, convenient self-filler and the problem of
leakage."

I've read and re-read this section and the preceding paragraphs.
Exactly when the problems with ink flow were overcome eludes me, but
it must be sometime between 1850 and the 1920s according to the
article. The sources I'm familiar with place this in the 1930s.

2.) The first sentence in the Quink article states Quink is "also
known as Double Quink and Parker 51 Ink" Yet the latter are
completely separate products. All three would fit under an article
about Parker ink but not Quink.

3.) The Sheaffer Skrip article implies Skrip was always used as the
name for Sheaffer ink. In the recent past it was simply "Sheaffer Ink."


STFU.

OOOO, such a clever rejoinder. Are you bucking for status as
Sheldon, Jr.?

Mark Z.
who refuses to participate in a ****ing contest and is done with
this thread

mz writes:

Juhapekka Tolvanen wrote:

Here are a few more Nick Name didn't mention.

1.) The FP article states:

I've read and re-read this section and the preceding paragraphs.
Exactly when the problems with ink flow were overcome eludes me, but
it must be sometime between 1850 and the 1920s according to the
article. The sources I'm familiar with place this in the 1930s.

I can not write about those things. Any takers?

2.) The first sentence in the Quink article states Quink is "also
known as Double Quink and Parker 51 Ink" Yet the latter are completely
separate products. All three would fit under an article about Parker
ink but not Quink.

Somebody should write article about those three inks of Parker or one
article about each ink. But I can't do that, because I don't know enough
about inks of Parker. Any takers?

3.) The Sheaffer Skrip article implies Skrip was always used as the
name for Sheaffer ink. In the recent past it was simply "Sheaffer
Ink."

Oh! As I said, that article was started by me, so I'll fix that.



--
Juhapekka "naula" Tolvanen * http colon slash slash iki dot fi slash juhtolv
"Katkeemaan ei sitä mitenkään saa. Turhempaa ei oo olemassakaan. Huomaa vaan
kun joku sanoo jotain sellaista, mitä kuulla haluaa. Ei haittaa onko edes
tottakaan. Oikeuttaa kalleintansa tuhlaamaan." Apulanta