wikipedia provisional or not only records.?

[palkanetoijala31]

Given the current climate where some people agree or not agree to provisional times is it time to have a debate on whether or not it should be allowed.

Now 2 times have been removed provisional or not from the site and we dont even know who the 2nd was but i believe the following debate has given cause for this issue to be discussed.

I have been doing the network now for 21 attempts now originally on my 1st attempt hakan was still record holder but browns attempt was faster by 5 mins so in my mind 18h 20m was the time to beat but 18h 25m was the official record etc.

Now the said wikipedia page has been edited by klomphy back to original setting with the 2 times minus Jay,s surname (hint here jay(bouncingtigger) what is ur surname 4 times asked now for proper records on wikipedia makes it look nicer if there is a reason u dont want ur surname known lets us know).Now im all for putting ur name up in lights and giving us the times to go for 17h 11m 05s is the provisional record so i be looking to beat that be nice if they come onto forum though.

[Sam]

In my opinion I think it is better to wait until it has been officially confirmed as a GWR, because that is what we should be aiming for.
It's all very well going for the lower provisional time but I know that if I was to go out and set a time faster than the CURRENT GWR but slower than the provisional record then I for sure would submit it because the others may fail to get it officially confirmed...

If that at all makes sense because it's early and makes sense to me in my head!

[palkanetoijala31]

Whom is this klomphy anyway.?

[Wanstead]

The Tube Challenge page on Wikipedia doesn't belong to us - so we can't set the rules for it anyway. As Root posted, only information from verifiable sources is permitted. Verifying an unverified record is an interesting one...

You know what I'm thinking, don't you? Scrxisi's proposed New times submission page, which would be a holding area for unconfirmed times.

What we do with them is up for further debate, but it moves the issue away from the free-for-all that is Wikipedia.

The only problem is what to do with times that are rejected by Guinness but present an improvement over previous times...

Whom is this klomphy anyway.?

I don't know but he's determined to get into an "Undo/Redo Edit" war!

I do find it hard to believe that anyone concerned with getting their full network attempt times on the Internet has not a) come across this forum and b) joined.

[Root]

This is the wrong place to hold the debate (if indeed there needs to be a debate) - it should happen on Wikipedia.

[jbom1]

You know what I'm thinking, don't you? Scrxisi's proposed New times submission page, which would be a holding area for unconfirmed times.

What we do with them is up for further debate, but it moves the issue away from the free-for-all that is Wikipedia.

Agreed - that's exactly the kind of thing we need.

The only problem is what to do with times that are rejected by Guinness but present an improvement over previous times...

I think Scrxisi's current site includes any that are believed to be full network completions, even if unratified - such as the 29.12.2007 Saturday attempt - as well as those outside the record, most of which never go to Guiness.

I do find it hard to believe that anyone concerned with getting their full network attempt times on the Internet has not a) come across this forum and b) joined.

Several people have attempted or completed the full network while unknown to this community.

[joy54]

Should there not be some kind of requirement for new record claimants to give some kind of evidence that their record attempt did indeed occur and their time is valid. for it to appear on Matt's site. I reckon we can be sure veterans of the forum can be trusted but should new claimants be just believed (it is of course not unheard of for false claims to be made a la ********).

The reason I state this is because it seems slightly strange to me that a record that was until a couple of weeks ago seemingly extremely tough to crack but has since been broken not once but twice. One of these attempts was posted about here, but gave a finishing station of Brixton (hard to believe a time of 17 hours 12 minutes was achieved finishing on a non-extremity line). The other has only been posted on Wikipedia with no further background information given...

[Wanstead]

Should there not be some kind of requirement for new record claimants to give some kind of evidence that their record attempt did indeed occur and their time is valid. for it to appear on Matt's site. I reckon we can be sure veterans of the forum can be trusted but should new claimants be just believed (it is of course not unheard of for false claims to be made a la ********).

I agree in principle but the tricky bit is defining "evidence".

No easy answers here

[bouncingtigger]

sticking to my original line I don't think provisional times should be up, until such time that they are verified.

On the bottom of the wikipedia page there is a link to here which is how I ended up here, and was my first port of call. For my previous attempts I'd registered with guinness and they told me what the time to beat was, no mention of times to be verified.

If there are people serious enough that they want to beat the GWR, then if they've got as far as Wiki, then they should at least come the final hurdle and view the forum, even if they haven't registered, they can still see what's going on, and any provisional times on here.

[Mitchell&BrownLook]

Can I just say that I think it is a little sad that you don't want to add the times to your website Matt. While I can understand your viewpoint, I also think we should be gentlemanly and accept these times, especially those faster than the current Guinness approved time. I only say this as those individuals who have beaten the Guinness approved record, will no doubt be keen to submit their record breaking time, as that is the aim of all prospective world record holders. As a community we should be proud that we have an independent adjudicator, Guinness, and do no not rely on self regulation, which as has been shown recently in politics can be fraught.

If of course, an individual chooses not to submit their new record time to Guinness but still proclaims to have broken the record, this is when that individual should be discredited, and only then. Thus all prospective record breakers are innocent until proven guilty by Guinness, and Guinness alone.

We should be celebrating the fact that bouncingtigger may well have broken the record, and that he has sought to have his time approved. If Guinness deem that he has not submitted enough evidence then this too is fair, and he should not be castigated for this, as he is also free to attempt to break the record once again. The only individuals I believe we should discredit are those which do not seek Guinness approval and claim to be the record holders.

[Sam]

Edited: Meh, i'm talking crap

[jbom1]

Anyone who's interested may wish to read, comment or object to my recent edit of the Wikipedia article's discussion page.

[Starkey7]

The only individuals I believe we should discredit are those which do not seek Guinness approval and claim to be the record holders.

Not necessarily. After all, what if it was a charity attempt (for example, the Children in Need business) and the participants didn't bother taking witness statements and photos? They shouldn't feel ashamed to state that they've broken the record, even though they won't (and cannot) submit it to Guinness. If they've gone sub 17:11, they've gone 17:11, simple as that. No shame in it.

After all, I always moan about Guinness being the sole arbiter of ANY record, and question why they should have that honour. Moreover, at least for Scireixixsiscixsci's site, pretty much all of the times on there are taken on trust anyway, and I don't see much of a reason that the Provisional Full Network Times should be any different. Matt's site is a directory of people's attempts at all of the various challenges. While the Full Network has a Guinness record attached to it, it's technically just another page on His Site.

[Starkey7]

By the way, one of Bob Robinson's team mates was called Alex Chin-a-Fat. Brilliant! (Unless that was your creation, Jbom. )

[jbom1]

By the way, one of Bob Robinson's team mates was called Alex Chin-a-Fat. Brilliant! (Unless that was your creation, Jbom. )

http://www.geofftech.co.uk/tubechallenge/others.shtml