| My favorite Wikipedia story is when I tried to update the page for the "Homebrew Mobile Phone Club" to reflect the location of the first meeting. Someone (probably not at all maliciously) commented that the club's first meeting was at the Tech Shop in Menlo Park. This was untrue. It was at the Google offices at the GooglePlex in Mountain View near Moffett Field. I know because I was the organizer of the first meeting. As proof that the first meeting was at the Tech Shop one of the editors cited a Wired article where the author mentioned they attended a meeting there in Menlo Park. We absolutely held meetings there and I am forever grateful to Jim Newton for sponsoring us. Nowhere in the article (I believe by Robert Strohmeyer) did it mention this was the first meeting. And actually... I'm re-reading it... it talks about meeting at a law firm in Palo Alto, which I think was where we had our second and third meetings, so the conversation about the Tech Shop meetings being the first meeting is even weirder. Anyway... no amount of discussion could convince the volunteer wikipedia editor that our first meeting was at the GooglePlex, even the post on Boing Boing announcing it (thank you Cory Doctorow for amplifying the message.) They just decided they were right and I was wrong. In the end they nominated the article for deletion and by that time I was totally okay with it. The club had dissolved after the release of Android and the iPhone, where you could actually write your own phone apps. And now with the Pine Phone (and other platforms I can't remember the name of) it's not clear what the club would be advocating for. Anyway, I still think the Wikipedia is a great place to go find references about a subject you're not familiar with. But you absolutely need to do due diligence and continue finding references if your search is important. And to be clear... my point is... sometimes human editors imply "facts" are in references when they clearly are not. In this case it was a minor, unimportant detail -- the location of the first meeting. But I have noticed several times wikipedia editors including "facts" that aren't supported by the citations. Caveat Lector. |
But one day I went to the wiki page for client-side prediction and it said Duke Nukem 3D was first which I thought was curious, so I checked the reference on it and it was a recent interview with Ken Silverman - creator of the Build engine that DN3D ran on - which clearly stated DN3D was first:
> "People may point out that Quake’s networking code was better due to its drop-in networking support, [but] it did not support client side prediction in the beginning,” he explains. “That’s something I had come up with first and implemented in the January 1996 release of Duke 3D shareware."
Pretty unfair for Ken, I thought, that everyone’s got the wrong idea that it’s QuakeWorld. Since the source is available, with the help of Hacker News we even found the code for it in game.c[0].
To be a good citizen I went back over to the Wikipedia page and added a link to the source code to help solidify the claim. But while I was there I went back and read the interview again, and noticed a part I’d skimmed the first time:
> "It kind of pisses me off that the Wikipedia page article on ‘client side prediction’ gives credit to Quakeworld due to a lack of credible citations about Duke 3D."
I wondered if and when it had been changed from saying Duke 3D to QuakeWorld in the past (before eventually being changed back again sometime after the interview), so I went and had a look through the page history. It had been changed a few years ago due to lack of any citations. And the person who had removed it... was me.
---
[0] https://github.com/videogamepreservation/dukenukem3d/blob/ef... See domovethings(), fakedomovethings(), and fakedomovethingscorrect().