Bockscar in Wikipedia

You may (or may not) like this. The article's been "reverted" - that is, someone's put the piece about restoring Bockscar to airworthy condition back again.

[later]
FWIW - I e-mailed the NMUSAF and asked them for their "official" comment. My office phone logger prevents me from calling Ohio right now.

Rob / Kansan

Last edited by Kansan on Wed Nov 16, 2005 12:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[TimAPNY]

The Museum will need to do a major move to get Bockcar out of the WW2 hanger. I would think that if they had a plan to restore it they would not have moved it to the far end of the hanger (the opposite side of the hanger doors). But it is tied to the Government so...

I just can't buy into this idea.

I just can't buy into this idea.

Me neither. Like the Colonel says, if she's one of four airplanes specifically mentioned on a national preservation list this assertion is extremely odd.

Rob / Kansan

[Originalboxcar]

You have to take wiki like everything else (including WIX) on the internet with a grain of salt and not accept it as the gospel until it's verified by first person.

There is a discussion tab where one could add comments about the validaty of the information.

As a side, I did find a wiki b-29 photo below that gives it a diminished perspective. WOW is that B-36 huge!



regards,

t~

You have to take wiki like everything else (including WIX) on the internet with a grain of salt and not accept it as the gospel until it's verified by first person.

There is a discussion tab where one could add comments about the validaty of the information.

What? You mean everything on the Internet isn't true? You're preaching to the choir, OB.

What I find galling is looking at the page's history someone deleted the offending chunk and then someone else put it back in again. Right now it's gone again and someone's left a comment on the discussion page.

R/K

Speaking in my capcity as alleged information professional and having watched Jimmy Wales on C-SPAN a few weeks ago saying "if enough people look at Wikipedia, we achieve a truthful consensus" (or words to that effect) I find it odd that assertions like this hang out there and gain some authority, and then get put back into the article when they're edited/challenged/removed

I'd also like to know how many WIX-ers contribute to Wikipedia since there is a vast resource of knowledge that could be put to good use. There is a lot of negative and positive opinion about WP but I thought the good outweighed the bad.

R/K

[Eric Friedebach]

I PM’d the person who reverted the Wiki, asking where he is getting his info about being restored to airworthy condition.

[Originalboxcar]

You have to take wiki like everything else (including WIX) on the internet with a grain of salt and not accept it as the gospel until it's verified by first person.

There is a discussion tab where one could add comments about the validaty of the information.

What? You mean everything on the Internet isn't true? You're preaching to the choir, OB.

What I find galling is looking at the page's history someone deleted the offending chunk and then someone else put it back in again. Right now it's gone again and someone's left a comment on the discussion page.

R/K

no offense kansan, as I was stating the very obvious.

Unfortunately, that's the state we appear to be in these days when information on the internet is accepted as truth. An yes there appears to be many credible resources here at WIX that have information right from the horses mouth.

It'd be great if we could get official confirmation from the NMUSAF either way eh?

regards,

t~

[Originalboxcar]

I PM’d the person who reverted the Wiki, asking where he is getting his info about being restored to airworthy condition.

Quite the profile on this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Redvers

This user page has been vandalized 2 times

hmm,

regards,

t~

[TimAPNY]

I PM’d the person who reverted the Wiki, asking where he is getting his info about being restored to airworthy condition.

Quite the profile on this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Redvers

This user page has been vandalized 2 times

hmm,

regards,

t~

I wonder if its been vandalized again

[airnutz]

Only Twice?? I find it interesting that on Wikipedia's Home page, they make the claim, "anybody can edit", but if one does such without observing an non-apparent protocol...it's called vandalizing.

It'd be great if we could get official confirmation from the NMUSAF either way eh?

I did. They're not. Just like the bear on the Andy Williams Show. "Not now, not ever, never!"

We knew this anyway, didn't we?

Rob / Kansan

[airnutz]

Kansan..The Ab-Fab Welshman certainly is a persistent little blighter! We
managed to get Bockscar removed from Current Airworthy, but he's
sticking to his guns on Enola Gay. Probably read the Smitsonian press
about "99% original"...

Salut Mon Colonel!!

It's OK - you don't need to go in hot on this one. I do have an email from the NMUSAF (received this very morning) saying they have no intention of restoring Bockscar to airworthy condition. I am prepared to unleash this if needs be. However I think the author has stepped back from the previous position - having been challenged in the Talk section of Wikipedia by two different people. The article needs a little work (e.g. why is Enola Gay still listed under "airworthy"? ) however I suspect at least one WIXer is also a Wikipedian who's been giving this some attention. Look at the discussion / talk pages (and the editing history) and you'll see what I mean.

Rob