![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Why I shouldn't trust Wikipedia...
Aug. 21st, 2010 12:54 pmWikipedia's page on A Dance with Dragons currently contains this sentence:
For me, this was a mini-WTF. If he had said any such thing on the 8th, I'd have known, possibly have been an eyewitness. The 8th was the Thursday of his week of Clarion. (Coincidentally, the day the class workshopped my week 2 story.) The phrase "spoke at a conference" implies that he said this in the course of teaching at Clarion. This, AFAIK, is not what happened. (And, honestly, not counting GRRM, there are only 17 other people who know first hand what he said on the UCSD campus that week. A couple more if GRRM called anyone.)
On the plus side, Wikipedia is nothing if not all about the verifiability. The cited source makes much more sense:
On the 7th, he did a reading/Q&A session/book signing at Mysterious Galaxy. Questions about when he'd finish A Dance with Dragons was explicitly off-limits, but he may have talked about the book's length. I honestly don't remember at this point. That makes much more sense though than the Wikipedia entry which implied he had mentioned when he "spoke at a conference" on the 8th.
How anyone got from the cited paragraph to the sentence in Wikipedia is beyond me since they don't say the same thing at all. I suppose one can point to the citation and think, "See, readers can still find the correct information." However, no one is going to think to follow the citation unless they read the sentence and think something is off. The Wikipedia sentence in question, though, will not ring alarm bells in many people's heads. Practically no one will think to follow the cite.
Granted, this is a pretty unimportant case. Who cares if he said this in class on the 8th or at a book signing on the night of the 7th? There's nothing special about this particular sentence though. Everything I've said about this sentence, someone else in the world can say about some other more important sentence.
This is just a reminder to myself that Wikipedia may be the place I look first, but it shouldn't be the last. (I knew that of course. I've just never had it demonstrated so personally before.)
On July 8, 2010 Martin spoke at a conference and confirmed the current length of the book to be 1,400 Manuscript pages. He expressed his disappointment that he was unable to completely finish the book by the conference, although he would not speculate how soon the book would be completed after his return home on the July 11.
For me, this was a mini-WTF. If he had said any such thing on the 8th, I'd have known, possibly have been an eyewitness. The 8th was the Thursday of his week of Clarion. (Coincidentally, the day the class workshopped my week 2 story.) The phrase "spoke at a conference" implies that he said this in the course of teaching at Clarion. This, AFAIK, is not what happened. (And, honestly, not counting GRRM, there are only 17 other people who know first hand what he said on the UCSD campus that week. A couple more if GRRM called anyone.)
On the plus side, Wikipedia is nothing if not all about the verifiability. The cited source makes much more sense:
8 July 2010 Update:
At a book signing in San Diego, whilst teaching at Clarion, GRRM confirmed that ADWD has reached 1,400 pages in manuscript. He indicates that he was disappointed not to have finished the book before attending Clarion, but was not drawn on how close completion might me after his return home on the 11th.
On the 7th, he did a reading/Q&A session/book signing at Mysterious Galaxy. Questions about when he'd finish A Dance with Dragons was explicitly off-limits, but he may have talked about the book's length. I honestly don't remember at this point. That makes much more sense though than the Wikipedia entry which implied he had mentioned when he "spoke at a conference" on the 8th.
How anyone got from the cited paragraph to the sentence in Wikipedia is beyond me since they don't say the same thing at all. I suppose one can point to the citation and think, "See, readers can still find the correct information." However, no one is going to think to follow the citation unless they read the sentence and think something is off. The Wikipedia sentence in question, though, will not ring alarm bells in many people's heads. Practically no one will think to follow the cite.
Granted, this is a pretty unimportant case. Who cares if he said this in class on the 8th or at a book signing on the night of the 7th? There's nothing special about this particular sentence though. Everything I've said about this sentence, someone else in the world can say about some other more important sentence.
This is just a reminder to myself that Wikipedia may be the place I look first, but it shouldn't be the last. (I knew that of course. I've just never had it demonstrated so personally before.)
