Landships II

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: Tanks Encyclopedia


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 3717
Date:
Tanks Encyclopedia
Permalink   


Tanks Encyclopedia has some outstanding content - wonderful artwork, wide range of vehicles described in impressive detail, some of them delightfully obscure.

However, if I might make an observation (and I hope Leander and the other contributors will take this in the spirit in which it is intended) one or two of the more general articles would benefit from some revision. There are a few mistakes here and there, some of them old favourites; for example the claim that the British Mark Is were shipped to France in wooden crates that had "With care to Petrograd" painted on the side. That's a chestnut that shouldn't be there. The explanation of what "A7V" stands for isn't quite right. Ernest Swinton's relationship with the Landship Committee isn't correctly explained. "A Mark IV showing the proper use of the unditching beam. Before that, an early solution was the use of a wide 3.5 m (11ft 5in) wide fascine," isn't quite right. And so on. If you have a read through these articles you'll probably spot more:

https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/world-war-i-tanks.php

https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww1/ww1-british-tanks.php

Several of the articles ask "Hello dear reader! This article is in need of some care and attention and may contain errors or inaccuracies. If you spot anything out of place, please let us know!" so I don't feel too bad about making this suggestion. I have made some comments, but I'm not sure they've been posted on the site. Leander says that "Tanks Encyclopedia is becoming one of the greatest websites in human history I think." It will be nice if that happens (although it will have to be good if it is to be better than Landships . . . ) but if it is to become the touchstone it shouldn't contain and perpetuate errors. We've got Wikipedia for that.

All comments and abuse welcome.



__________________

"Sometimes things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.



Corporal

Status: Offline
Posts: 18
Date:
Permalink   

Haha, I made that specific comment more jokingly and hopingly than seriously.
Anyway, I very much appreciate the feedback! Since we are a team, I cannot really speak on behalf of Tanks Encyclopedia, but I will make some comments on your remarks as a team member.

We are aware that some of our general articles contain outdated and flat-out wrong information. It's because at first, by the founder, the site was never intended as an informational site, but as a platform to test web-related things and publish his illustrations of armored vehicles. Starting roughly from 2017, only then, a team started to emerge that set itself the goal to not only publish the illustrations, but also provide top notch information.

Not too long ago, this conflict of old and new interests led to the elimination of most (not all) old articles from the site. Those are now only accessible on a different part of the site for SEO reasons and not part of our current portfolio. By this move, we hoped that our new articles would be appreciated better, as the incorrect information in the old articles was quite a hindrance to the audience. After all, why would you take an article for correct, even if it's really good, when it is surrounded by other articles full of errors? Some old articles on essential topics were retained, however, but with the 'outdated banner' included.

Now, the composition of our team has some drawbacks. We are all volunteers and thus, we cannot be ordered what to write on or not. In practice this means that most writers have their niche and don't write about much else. Because of this, some fields of armored vehicle history are represented disproportionally on the site, and most general and mainstream stuff is less written about. To give my personal perspective, it's because those larger topics are much harder to write about, as it requires much more time and even investment of personal money to buy books etc., and I even avoid some difficult topics in the fear of potentially spreading misinformation, exactly the thing that we want to fight. 

This means that, while rewriting the wrong articles is one of our top priorities, the actual rate these improvements are published is unfortunately very low. I fully admit that this is a bad thing.

I hope this provides a bit of context and I want to stress that it is my personal take on it and not an 'offical' one. Anyway, feedback and suggestions are always more than welcome. I'll look into the problems you raised and see if I can correct or remove them on the site.

"(although it will have to be good if it is to be better than Landships . . . )" :))  Since abuse is welcome, in some places, Landships isn't much better than Tanks Encyclopedia ;)

"but if it is to become the touchstone it shouldn't contain and perpetuate errors. We've got Wikipedia for that." I cannot agree more, and we have a lot of work ahead of us. We maintain a publicly accessible and editable Google Spreadsheet in which we record what we still need to cover and its a lot, new things are added each day...



__________________


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 2100
Date:
Permalink   

 

If asked I would make the comment that too much of the material on Tanks Encyclopedia is sourced from derivative works

in English. I'd recommend spending the time and effort to utilise non-English sources where appropriate. I know it's time consuming

and often difficult to comprehend technical works in French, Italian and Russian but the improvement in the reliability and authority of

articles makes it worthwhile. At least these days you don't have to be a native speaker of a language to be able to use non-English sources.

Even Wikipedia has accepted the logic of using non-English sources after many years of American English chauvinism.

 

You have a team for Tanks Encyclopedia? - luxury.

Regards,

Charlie

 



-- Edited by CharlieC on Friday 4th of June 2021 01:26:40 AM

__________________


Brigadier

Status: Offline
Posts: 295
Date:
Permalink   

Guys, I'm interested in WW1 armor only, so from Tanks Encyclopedia's articles I read almost only those on WW1. I see much improvement lately thanks to Leander, but still some articles need serious corrections. However, also many Landships articles need corrections because a lot of them are based on B.T. White's "Tanks and Other Armored Fighting Vehicles 1900 to 1918". It was published half a century ago and contains many errors.



-- Edited by Albert on Friday 4th of June 2021 08:50:51 AM

__________________
Sorry for my bad English ;)


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 2100
Date:
Permalink   

Albert wrote:

Guys, I'm interested in WW1 armor only, so from Tanks Encyclopedia's articles I read almost only those on WW1. I see much improvement lately thanks to Leander, but still some articles need serious corrections. However, also many Landships articles need corrections because a lot of them are based on B.T. White's "Tanks and Other Armored Fighting Vehicles 1900 to 1918". It was published half a century ago and contains many errors.



-- Edited by Albert on Friday 4th of June 2021 08:50:51 AM


 If you find errors come up with corrections and email them to me (email is on the website) or post them in the forum.

Landships II was always a group effort - it's just that the group hasn't been very productive in recent years.

My personal interests aren't in armour so I haven't done much work with those articles.

Charlie

 



__________________


Corporal

Status: Offline
Posts: 18
Date:
Permalink   

Some valid points of criticism to which I do mostly agree. 

Although I'll have to disagree on the notion that we rely too heavily upon derivative English sources. As explained, that may have been like that in the past when most works were based on wikipedia, and as a matter of fact also on Landships as far ww1 articles were concerned, but this is not the case anymore. When I look at my own works, I almost exclusively use German sources for German/Austrian stuff, Dutch sources for Dutch stuff, and overall a mixture of English, German, Austrian, French, and Danish sources. 

Other examples are the articles related to Italy, Mexico, Spain, and Yugoslavia, to name just a few, which mostly use sources from the respective languages, with English sources mostly used only when appropriate.



__________________


Field Marshal

Status: Offline
Posts: 433
Date:
Permalink   

Bonjour,

" I'd recommend spending the time and effort to utilise non-English sources where appropriate "

Yes, it will be better !

" Trials were organized with Louis Renault, the car maker, and two officers, De Bousquet and Cdt Ferrus "

de Bousquet was not and officer but a Non-Commissioned Officer (Adjudant in French)

Louis Renault was just there, for one trial as " guest/observer" like some other people . . . . .

Bon week-end - Michel



__________________


Sergeant

Status: Offline
Posts: 46
Date:
Permalink   

I have found this site recently while doing research into some WW1 vehicles. I like the artwork, but pretty early on have dismissed most of the text due to errors and inaccuracies. I also sense that much of the text is captured from other sources, mistakes copied from other sites to theirs. I find it funny that the site made sure to mention that content writings are responsibility of each writer, but you can't directly email anyone on the site. Only one generic email, it may very well be one person behind the curtain with several pen names.

One last thing I find very funny is the site says you might be able to use their drawings, etc. under special circumstances and with permissions from them. However, all of the period pictures I see on the site are not their property.

I like the artwork on it though.

-Tony I



-- Edited by Tony I on Tuesday 8th of June 2021 02:57:33 AM



-- Edited by Tony I on Tuesday 8th of June 2021 03:27:02 AM

__________________


Corporal

Status: Offline
Posts: 18
Date:
Permalink   

Hey Tony,

The content is indeed the responsibility of each writer and when you leave a comment below the article, if all works well, the author automatically receives an email. I assure you that each author posts under his own name. It is true that most comments are handled by the same person, a comment manager if you want to put a name on it, but in depth critiques are always discussed with the author first.

If you want direct contact with someone, just ask in an email, on facebook, twitter, instagram, discord, or wherever online.

As far the copyrights go, we only claim copyright on our artwork and on the writing, we don't claim any rights on period pictures.

Kind regards,
Leander

__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard