I will grant the reader it isn’t a secret I do not like WRM materials in general, and never have. What blows my mind it that wikiHow sanctions/pays for/ or otherwise supports their contributions, in a way that seems to play favorites above the volunteer community. That being said, in a discussion long ago, regarding their superfluous creation of a number of identical articles about making biofuel (thin How to Make BioDiesel, How to Make Biofuel, How to Make (enter your chosen synonym here), an assurance was given that someone was going to do an audit on their contributions for duplicate content. No such effort was ever made, of course, but that is water under the bridge. It still doesn’t make the fact that they managed to publish two identical subject articles two days apart, http://www.wikihow.com/index.php?title=Replace-Rotors&action=history
and http://www.wikihow.com/index.php?title=Replace-Brake-Rotors&action=history
, and the fact they are exempt from NAB review (I assume), it means if these topics are to be handled according to merge or deletion as duplicate, it falls on someone actually noticing the situation.
If we ask the general population to respect the deletion policy and the fact their content can/will be merged or deleted, it would seem we would hold a sanctioned part of wikiHow to the same or higher standard. Not that it should surprise me, or heaven forbid, piss me off, but it does.
Anna
2
Ah, 2011 WRM - not a high point in anyone’s mind. It’s nice to see that we’ve come a long way since then and we can generally do better now! That’s why this article was stubbed recently, so it would be removed from searches until it was given an overhaul and accuracy check. At the time of being assigned to an editor, they’d do a dup check before tackling it - and merge if needed. But, glad to know ahead of time that there’s a dup out there and we can skip a step! I will redirect the page - thanks for the heads-up
system
3
I also find it interesting that the “Replace Rotors” article got marked as a stub by one of the editing fellow people, but they did not demote it, nor did they check to see if there was duplicate content and process it the way we would expect it to be done by the community (NFD for duplicate).
I am still seeing ridiculous errors in WRM and editing fellow contributions, everything from spelling and grammar mistakes, questionable content, bad formatting, duplicate article submissions, and just plain terrible writing.
A while ago we were told to submit concerns about these issues on a form. I did so on several occasions, but it never got any better. I agree with Bob that any effort to audit the contributions was half-hearted at best, and it seems to have returned to the same old, same old.
The bottom line for me is that the quality of stuff coming from these sources is not good enough for it to be automatically patrolled and promoted in NAB. It needs to be reviewed by someone before being fully published.
I would step in briefly with the added insight Jeff offered. I don’t patrol Seymour Edit’s work simply because they are careless with spelling and grammar, and the fact is, if wikiHaus is sanctioning them, I don’t care to spend my time in that direction. WRM is getting better? I don’t think that is the case at all, but wikiHaus, of course, has to support wikiHaus…that is what internal politics is all about, isn’t it? We (wikiHaus/Anna) are always quick to point out the great improvements in wikiPhoto/video, but of the 300 or so responses to image problems since I replaced my laptop, only a very few of the photos I have suggested are incorrect have been changed. But of course, we are assured they are getting better/doing a fantastic job, etc…
Anna
5
Ah, we clashed in timing, Jeff - sorry, that confuses the response! But yep, Michelle stubbed it to remove it from reader searches, and as I mentioned, at the time of an editor being assigned the title, they’d do the dup check and redirect. In this case, Bob just spotted it before it got to anyone.
When it comes to quality, while we do try to minimize mistakes, but all the editors are human, and mistakes will happen along the way, even in cases where the overall helpfulness of the page is improved by the edit. One thing to keep in mind is that if you see an article in RCP, you’re generally seeing it right after the editor hits publish. There are many steps in the review process after an article gets edited by a fellow. The editors themselves often do more proofreading/follow-up after they push their edits; then in another few days, it gets reviewed by one of the wikiHaus team, like Michelle or Carrie. Once a week, a chunk of the articles also go through an editing audit for closer review/feedback/fixing and the editors do revisions based on those audits. We also have a process of review and feedback by outside auditors, in the days/weeks following that big overhaul. If they’re on topics that are getting expert reviewed, they’ll also go on to have another once-over (or sometimes twice- or thrice-over!) and set of edits based on the expert feedback. So there are many layers of checking, but those don’t all come right after the editor clicks Publish - sometimes it’s a long process
Michelle is actually planning on coming to the meet-up and is looking forward to meeting more community folks, so I’m sure she’d be happy to talk more with you, Jeff, and go over it all in person. She’ll be able to go into more nitty gritty than I can, since she’s in the thick of it!
I would like to expand this topic a little bit. The article in question has a stamp saying master mechanic approved- I question his qualification, since the article lamely suggests using lubricants on and around the brake system, even on the rotor (although I took the liberty to remove that suggestion), there are no cautions or warnings about the traction control sensor or antilock brake sensors often an integral part of the rotor, there is no information about bleeding off brake fluid when the caliper piston is compressed, even though many brake systems have check valves and the antilock brake motor can be damaged if the fluid is force backward through the brake lines in volume? The statement that one simply removes a castellated nut and cotter pin to remove the rotor hub assembly ignores the fact that wheel bearings will fall out and a grease seal will probably require replacement>>? So, besides being some mechanic dot com, did someone really read the article, and does that person’s endorsement hold good through out any and all edits that could potentially be made? I am sure the staff who are presently editing the page have never seen a brake rotor in real life, and as with an earlier thread about a similar topic, we are dealing with very real life safety issues in this topic.
I have to agree with Bobbyfrank above, as he is right that using lubricants around the rotor is a bad idea in most cases. I read it, and it does have a few misleadign info and bad ideas that any good car shop should see. Now, I’m not as skilled in newer cars with the plethora of electronic sensors, as I work on old classics and electric cars, but it does seem like the article was “research written”, not actually written from any real life experience/knowledge from the lack of in-depth ifnormation.
I hope the articles like these are written keeping practical knowledge to the fore than research or theory which may not be substantial enough to fulfill the purpose of the article. These topics are very critical in nature.
