Wikipaedia is generally to be trusted. but, as with any other source of information, take everything with a pinch of caution.

Sometimes the source of a statement will be given - you can then, hopefully, refer to the source and check your opinion of its validity. Cross check with other sources of information, if any.

Sometimes, as with items that are not supported by references, Wikipaedia inserts comments like "(reference wanted)".

All same, when I state something: "I am certain", "I believe", "I think", "I have heard", "I understand", "I have heard a rumour", "it is possible that". Varying degrees of strength of belief. Take appropriate heed!!

And as to official sources, note the APTA Fact Book for 2011, which has for almost all tables the note in some columns (thousands). In most cases this is right, but for table 1 - check it - I do not believe that NYCTA has around 11 million vehicles, or that Upper Whoop-whoop had 2000 buses! Can't remember the exact figures or names, but of this order. Clearly the "(thousands)" heading is inappropriate in this table! So even sources as good as APTA must be looked at carefully.

Regards

Dudley Horscroft
----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Pearce
To:TramsDownUnder@...
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 12:57 AM
Subject: RE: [TramsDownUnder] wikipedia

Hi all,

The thing with 'Wiki' is that the info is only as good and as accurate as the info that the contributor has provided, and that is true of everything, naturally.

If an error is found (in Wiki), then one can correct it, and the person who corrects or provides information has to identify themselves with 'Wiki' before doing that - not that proves anything, as aliases can and often are used. That of course won't stop anyone innocently or deliberately providing incorrect information however.

With any information - especially if it is being sought for part of text to be used in a book - it should always (if possible) be checked with other sources to confirm or otherwise that information. Photographic evidence, maps and other similar material is always good if available, and original letters and papers (or copies) from reputable sources such as the State Library or Oral and/or History Collections at local libraries is always a good source, of course.

I also believe that more than one source should always be strived for to ensure the most accurate of information. Where alternative or additional sources of information is not available, then if the material is of sufficient importance, and can be supported with local area common knowledge which may not be in written form, then it might be necessary to use that material, but references can be used to state the source or accuracy of such information has not been supported by other sources.

The research that went into 'Tracks' proved the worth of the time taken, and the sources that were checked, as we have not had any corrections to any of the information included in that book.

And, of course, there will always be new or additional information that suddenly becomes known once a book is published and released, as sometimes the holders of such knowledge only make themselves known after reading the book anyway.

All the above has not been written to put people off the task of writing a book however, but only as matters of interest that perhaps should be considered when preparing a tome for publishing.

Bob in Perth