Wikipedia on SafeSpeed
Discussion
I was quite impressed by the Speed limit article on wikipedia. Less so by the one on SafeSpeed, which is the subject of discussion as to its neutrality. So I thought it would be useful to bring it to the attention of the forum, in the hope that our rational, articulate and level-headed members (I think there are some 
) might be able to make a contribution.
) might be able to make a contribution. My goodness its amazing that the safespeed artical has a problem with "neutrality". Yet when you look at articles about, say foxhunting or bin Laden, theres no problem!
On the talk page, this comment makes me laugh.
I could imagine though that a lot of people would probably love to dispute safespeed being known as a "road safety based" organisation, simply because they oppose cameras
On the talk page, this comment makes me laugh.
strange non driver said:
I thought the idea was to enforce the law? Naive, I know, but as far as I can tell there is widespread consensus that the consequences of breaking the law should normally be some kind of punishment.
I could imagine though that a lot of people would probably love to dispute safespeed being known as a "road safety based" organisation, simply because they oppose cameras
I added this at the bottom:
"There is however, amongst a minority of motorists, concern that camera safety partnerships exist solely on the income derived from speeding fines, and that without such fines the organisations involved would not be able to exist - and pay their staff. It could be said that this is a conflict of interests, and that organisations should receive funding direct from an independant source to guarantee their neutrality in collecting fines."
"There is however, amongst a minority of motorists, concern that camera safety partnerships exist solely on the income derived from speeding fines, and that without such fines the organisations involved would not be able to exist - and pay their staff. It could be said that this is a conflict of interests, and that organisations should receive funding direct from an independant source to guarantee their neutrality in collecting fines."
So the freak has found a place to vent that apparently tolerates his pseudo science, and is happy for him to claim to represent the general public when he clearly is out of touch with the both the general public and reality.
It a serious discredit to Wikipedia that this sort of biased entry is allowed - it had gone down immeasurably in my estimation.
Perhaps Paul Smith could take note. He must pay fees for the SafeSpeed website; he may be better advised to have Wikipedia host his side of the speed camera argument for free. He too could hide behind behind anonymity.
It a serious discredit to Wikipedia that this sort of biased entry is allowed - it had gone down immeasurably in my estimation.
Perhaps Paul Smith could take note. He must pay fees for the SafeSpeed website; he may be better advised to have Wikipedia host his side of the speed camera argument for free. He too could hide behind behind anonymity.
GreenV8S said:I think I was under the misapprehension that it was moderated in some way, and that a concensus view was presented. Not someone postulating his personal opinion then beating everyone off with an sh1tty stick (*sorry, editing) until no-one can be bothered arguing any more. I can be pretty naive sometimes.
That's what wiki is all about, isn't it? Whoever is most persistent has the last word.
victormeldrew said:You have obviously missed the point of a Wiki then. Anyone can edit it - it's like a website where everyone is a webmaster. Anyone is free to edit it, so as GreenV8S says, it is down to whoever last edited the page as to what is displayed at any one time. And what is displayed most of the time is down to whoever is the most persistent in editing the page.
It a serious discredit to Wikipedia that this sort of biased entry is allowed
JonRB said:Yup, missed that by a country mile. So a wiki is some sort of communal blog then?
It a serious discredit to Wikipedia that this sort of biased entry is allowed
My comment still stands though, and it appears that Larry Sanger is in agreement; roll on son of wikipedia.
I do like the term wiki-w*nker though.
victormeldrew said:Essentially, yes.
So a wiki is some sort of communal blog then?
Wikis are extremely useful in a controlled environment - like a Development Team sharing documentation, information, tips, knowledge, etc. However, as Wikipedia has shown they are less useful in uncontrolled environments like the www.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Just_zis_Guy%2C_yo
Interesting, one of the main 'modifiers' of the safespeed article describes his only car as a 'mobile death greenhouse'.
www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
Interesting, one of the main 'modifiers' of the safespeed article describes his only car as a 'mobile death greenhouse'.
www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
MrsMiggins said:
I think he wrote the original page, which was basically one long ad hominem attack on Paul Smith.
Guy ist not really liked by cyclists either - und judged as "crank" given some comments seen on a certain cycling forum.
Given content - only the same type whjo reside under same stone will take note. I think they are minority - but we have to ensure their daft opinion become extinct or more balanced just the same ...
Parrot of Doom said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Just_zis_Guy%2C_yo
Interesting, one of the main 'modifiers' of the safespeed article describes his only car as a 'mobile death greenhouse'.
www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
Ah! That explains why Safespeed is even on the Wikipedia radar screen.
I think the Wiki's are, sadly, bad news in the WWW space as previously posted. There are some dreadful examples of ad hominem attacks by people pushing their own reputations (and links to their blogs much of the time) and who seem to have plenty of time and desire to make the updates and continual 'changes' to the corrections of others.
The unsuspecting public, however, are unlikely to understand the way it all works or the deviousness of some of the more active and self believing authors.
Guy Chapman, if you read the pieces on his web site, seems to display an incredibly profound logic and I suspect that he has an awesome intellect in many ways. But, as I have written before, we all have certain areas of personal focus which are subject to blinkered vision. In GC's case this seems to revolve around some sort of personal health discovery based on cycling and consequentially an apparent desire to regale all who will listen with the list of benefits of cycling as an aerobic exercise and the de-benefits of cars except where they unavoidable. Even then it appears that GC sees himself as the perfect driver - which I suppose he could well be for all I know, though anyone with such a pre-disposition to believing in self perfection is, to me, something of a concern in terms of road safety.
It is of course possible that my interpretation is far from the reality of GC's position. But it is how it comes across to me.
GC cycles to work in all weather expending a condirable amount of energy and presumably generating quite a bit of heat in the process. I raised the question of having to take a shower when he arrived (and the practical effect on most businesses if they have the workforce turning up warm and moist and wanting to shower before starting work ...) and his response was that it was not necessary for him to take a shower after a 40 mimnute (or whatever) ride of around 15 or 20 miles (iirc).
All I can say is that if I had undertaken that ride I would certainly want a shower before starting work especially if I was in a customer facing/meeting/greeting role. And I suspect most others would as well. However I am aware that we all have potentially different bodily responses to the ambient conditions and it may well be that GC can indeed go showerless. I just don't think it is safe to assume that the majority of the population would remain a fragrant proposition after that level of exercise!
I suppose I could be wrong. What does the PH massive think?
Well as a cyclist myself, I can tell you that at my peak of fitness (almost 10 years ago now 
), I didn't require a shower after a 30minute ride. Splash of water and soap on the face, and that was it. Its mainly down to adequate hydration, and good clothing. Even on roasting hot days, it was never a problem.
), I didn't require a shower after a 30minute ride. Splash of water and soap on the face, and that was it. Its mainly down to adequate hydration, and good clothing. Even on roasting hot days, it was never a problem.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff