Walthers Flex Track

dmitri snipped-for-privacy@mail.ru spake thus:

Yes and yes. Once it's glued down, it will hold its shape well.

Says who, you? Speak for yourself, asshole.

Wiki is one of a very few survivors of the radical right's attacks on objective information and reporting in the U.S. May it live a very long and very prosperous life.

Jack F. Twist spake thus:

That is my *sig*, peabrain.

agreed

Yeppie, flex track will hold it's shape very nicely. Not only that, but you will have a lot less trackage problems as there will be a lot less railjoints where mechanical and electrical problems abound. There are times where I wished that the standard for bare rail was 6' or even longer as this decreases the number of joints even more. I often solder two rails together to get that longer length when hand laying rail (the most reliable trackwork of all) on my layout.

-- Why do penguins walk so far to get to their nesting grounds?

Because Wiki has no peer review of the information posted, anybody can (and has) post anything they wish as fact.

The credulous read this and take it as truth.

In its current form it is a colossal waste of electrons.

It was a good idea with a flawed implementation. After it dies under the accumulated load of rubbish posted as fact I would hope that something better would rise in its place.

Bill

B Dixon spake thus:

What he said.

If I were a teacher--at ANY level--I would forbid my students to use it for any type of research.

But I do highly recommend it to anyone who wants to know about every Simpsons episode ever made, every bit of Star Trek trivia, or role-playing game information.

Obviously you know little about how Wiki REALLY works. It has immediate and effective TRUE peer review. Yes, a page can be vandalized.. but it usually doesn't last long, and a quick look at the page history tells all.

I've been involved in a few corrections of revisionism, for example as done by fans of a self-published pseudo-author who claimed awards he wasn't entitled to. It's interesting how well it actually works.

And this is different from a paper encyclopedia how, exactly?

The longer it lasts the better, more comprehensive, and more accurate it gets.

Your bias is showing.

Agreed 100%.

Any reference material that can be doctored by an Tom, Dick or Harry becomes useless almost immediately.

Wikipedia is hardly a reliable reference source.

-- Cheers

Roger T.

Home of the Great Eastern Railway

in article snipped-for-privacy@grapevine.islandnet.com, Roger T. at snipped-for-privacy@highspeedplus.com wrote on 6/17/06 11:27 AM:

At least on science articles, Widipedia is about as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica, according to a the British journal "Nature." (ref:

Any T, D, or H can post, but now they are reviewed. The biggest problem which Wiki has is that the articles are generally not well written and are disorganized. Erroneous posts are quickly corrected by other posters. If a peer reviewed journal makes a mistake (like was done by the NE Journal of Medicine regarding Vioxx: some pertinent data was not included), it takes years to get a correction.

There is a place for Wiki as well as for traditional reference work: they should be used in conjunction with each other.

Well, compared to hte statements of Scott McClellan . . .

Edward A. Oates spake thus:

Only "reviewed" in the sense that they're gone over by *other* T, D, and Hs. (This includes the so-called "admins" and those in the Wiki "cabal".)

Still a problem.

The same force that produces this effect (sometimes) also works to slowly erode well-written articles into lumps of indefinite mush.