Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: cooldued on November 22, 2010, 06:39:33 PM
-
Introduced 1936 before the war was in action in WW2 wiki link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savoia-Marchetti_SM.79 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savoia-Marchetti_SM.79) i want more planes from Italy.
-
(http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/3471/researchcatlolcat.jpg)
:devil
-
What would you consider acceptable? And why not wikipedia is acceptable? Are all the other sources truly based on fact or are they based on whoever wrote it, just like wikipedia?
Semp
-
What would you consider acceptable? And why not wikipedia is acceptable? Are all the other sources truly based on fact or are they based on whoever wrote it, just like wikipedia?
Semp
Anyone who cites their (well known/ respectable) sources. Or has a respectable webpage with copyrights.
http://www.historyofwar.org/index.html (http://www.historyofwar.org/index.html)
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/)
http://www.warbirdalley.com/index.htm (http://www.warbirdalley.com/index.htm)
Try these or looking for the aircraft specifically.
Encyclopedias of military aircraft are useful...
-
When I first got my CH Fighterstick I thought it was a POS because center changed on it every day. One day I came into my computer room to find one of my cats standing with his front paws on the centering scrollers watching my screen saver and occasionly batting the joystick side to side. He now thinks my monitor is possesed by the devil and all is good.
Cats are like appreciating fine wines. Sometimes you open the bottle and the cork is a wild stinker. Sometimes the wine is a memorable winner like all the best times you ever had in your life. The rest of the time it sleeps and dosen't give a watermelon if you exist.... :)
-
Anyone who cites their (well known/ respectable) sources. Or has a respectable webpage with copyrights.
Look any any wiki page, each page has basically it's own bibliography. I'm honestly sick and tired of each person trying to knock it down.
-
Look any any wiki page, each page has basically it's own bibliography. I'm honestly sick and tired of each person trying to knock it down.
What's stopping me form editing that wikipedia page with what ever BS I want and not adding a source?
-
When I first got my CH Fighterstick I thought it was a POS because center changed on it every day. One day I came into my computer room to find one of my cats standing with his front paws on the centering scrollers watching my screen saver and occasionly batting the joystick side to side. He now thinks my monitor is possesed by the devil and all is good.
Cats are like appreciating fine wines. Sometimes you open the bottle and the cork is a wild stinker. Sometimes the wine is a memorable winner like all the best times you ever had in your life. The rest of the time it sleeps and dosen't give a watermelon if you exist.... :)
I have a cat
-
What's stopping me form editing that wikipedia page with what ever BS I want and not adding a source?
what is stopping you from creating your own webpage full of irrelevant sources like they are all over the internet? actually dont we have that here in our own wiki?
Most if not all all sources are one sided and mainly give you one point of view, the author's.
Anyone who cites their (well known/ respectable) sources. Or has a respectable webpage with copyrights.
http://www.historyofwar.org/index.html (http://www.historyofwar.org/index.html)
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/)
http://www.warbirdalley.com/index.htm (http://www.warbirdalley.com/index.htm)
Try these or looking for the aircraft specifically.
Encyclopedias of military aircraft are useful...
aren't this forums just like wikipedia? btw most published books are copyrighted as well, based on a true story and you know the meaning of that.
semp
-
What's stopping me form editing that wikipedia page with what ever BS I want and not adding a source?
the thousands of people that spend all their time on wiki, trying to make sure that any changes are actually correct. Trust me, I've tried.
-
(http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/yy329/Wildcat1995/277.jpg)
-
(http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/yy329/Wildcat1995/277.jpg)
agreed
-
Look any any wiki page, each page has basically it's own bibliography. I'm honestly sick and tired of each person trying to knock it down.
While Wiki might be a good tool to get you started, it's not the end all of end all when it comes to accurate and verifiable resources. The only reason why is that Wiki can be easily edited by anybody with little or no oversight. If you search these forums, you'll see some threads where we've gone and had fun on other people's Wiki pages and changed the information around. One Wiki page that I messed with (Moonbats) during a thread where we poked fun at Chalenge stayed like that for over a year and then where was the AH Wiki (not the official AH one, the one Brooke worked on) that I messed with as part of a S.A.P.P joke.
ack-ack
-
aren't this forums just like wikipedia? btw most published books are copyrighted as well, based on a true story and you know the meaning of that.
If you are that nit-picky and strip anything to the bone, fine. Travel to D.C. to look up information in the Library of Congress. Nothing will have 100% correct information except under direct circumstances. A forum and wiki are good starts, the forum is a well known forum and I trust info I get from there because a lot of the things I have looked up from there before are CORRECT. And if you can't find any mode of numbers, make a mean of them. Can't tell if it had a max speed of 210 or 220? Not getting the info from anywhere else? Average it.
"Based on a true story?" Bah, What about "Helmet For My Pillow?" Or "Flyboys?" Or how about an encycolpedia which draws it's sources from actual facts and statistics from the time period? Just because it has a copyright insignia does not make it innaccurate.
-
If you are that nit-picky and strip anything to the bone, fine. Travel to D.C. to look up information in the Library of Congress. Nothing will have 100% correct information except under direct circumstances. A forum and wiki are good starts, the forum is a well known forum and I trust info I get from there because a lot of the things I have looked up from there before are CORRECT. And if you can't find any mode of numbers, make a mean of them. Can't tell if it had a max speed of 210 or 220? Not getting the info from anywhere else? Average it.
"Based on a true story?" Bah, What about "Helmet For My Pillow?" Or "Flyboys?" Or how about an encycolpedia which draws it's sources from actual facts and statistics from the time period? Just because it has a copyright insignia does not make it innaccurate.
there's always two sides to one story, but usually the story being told is only what the author chose, not necessarily the truth. A copyright it just means you wrote something and you tell everybody you own it. you can copyright just about anything you write, but it doesnt make it accurate. point is the original posting was dismissed by machfly based on the fact that it had wikipedia as a reference, which is annoying the least, without actually looking at the info, to see if it was accurate or not.
I also pointed out that the sources you listed are basically the same thing as wikipedia. truth is when i comes to ww2 aircraft, not even the manuals from back then are totally accurate. If you have ever been in the military, you know that what the manual says and how you do things, sometimes dont exactly match.
Lets take for example the Lancaster's corkscrew maneuver. It's been argued here that it was an excellent defensive maneuver. except for one little tiny detail. too many of them got shot down by enemy fighters, which kind of make you think it was not as successful as previously stated. but you can look and find many books about how crews used it to save their lives.
I guess the point that some of us were trying to make is wikipedia is a good reference source and to dismiss it just so somebody can pretend to be funny and post a pretty picture is kind of stupid.
semp
-
Well put.
-
Encyclopedias of military aircraft are useful...
On the contrary, encyclopedias of military aircraft are rarely as accurate as Wikipedia. In fact, many of them are about as accurate as the history channel (actually, maybe that's why the history channel is so inaccurate)
Wikipedia is generally a pretty good source, especially on big issues-- where there's a lot of people editing, arguing about every little detail. There's literally thousands of rabid fact potatos on wikipedia that will debate every semantic.