It just gets better... "The company has taken another step toward its goal of taking the well off and adventurous on suborbital jaunts for fun and profit."
Huh? I keep trying to interpret that.
I think all companies should "take the well off" and "adventurous on suborbital jaunts'
That's not so bad. You need to read it as The company has taken another step toward its goal of taking the well off and adventurous on suborbital jaunts for fun and profit.
"the well off" and "adventurous" refer to people. "suborbital jaunts" is what they'd be taking part in.
It's a running joke around our office. More seriously, though, it's a good reminder to write code that is testable, or else some SQA team is going to unleash stuff like this for real.
For those not enlightened: The Github repository
I understand the system and the reason for preferring summaries of "reliable sources" over "independent truth", but it was (and is) really frustrating that this particular guy was absolutely against making any changes to the article largely because it had achieved "featured article" status at some point, under his purview. It was, in fact, that FA status that made Tiger folks pay attention to the article and realize it was full of errors. The editor would not accept any sources (in popular press or otherwise) other than the ones he'd decided were "most reliable", which essentially makes it un-fixable within the Wikipedia rules.
What you describe is called an "appeal to authority", it is a logical fallacy.
Point taken. The issue with the particular page I have a vested interest in, is that it mostly concerns hard facts for which there is documentation in the form of build records, inter-company correspondence, as well as the physical evidence of features on cars that I've seen, touched, and owned. For a variety of reasons, the authors of the books used as reference on the Wiki page did not have access to all the documentation that is now known to exist, at the time they published their books; but, due to the arcane machinations of Wikipedia, even those authors are not currently able to refute themselves in the eyes of the editors and get the pages fixed... evidently the only "authority" are the Wikipedia editors, which is just as wrong.
In case you haven't seen it yet: See Comet Catalina tomorrow morning before dawn
I'd post this as a story but it would probably go front-page on the 2nd.
I understand the Wikipedia use of the word "reliable" and it's unfortunate they adopted an approach where an oft-repeated story by a coffee-table-book author can obliterate facts that were learned only through years of careful research by niche enthusiasts.
If Jimmy had created a way for expert information to be included (with appropriate justification from non-mainstream references), rather than just depending on regurgitated mainstream dreck, then Wikipedia would not be the lowest common denominator that it is, and maybe he would not have such a hard time getting donations to keep it going.
Wikipedia wants to reflect the mainstream press and most reliable sources..
The problem is that "reliable" is only as good as the background knowledge of the editor on the particular topic being discussed, and his/her willingness to be objective in the light of new information.
If it happens once, it's a bug. If it happens twice, it's a feature. If it happens more than twice, it's a design philosophy.