Seattlest Pix 09Nov20
Friendly Folk-Pop for the Kids: Hey Marseilles at Vera This Saturday
Seattlest Pix 09Nov21
Excavator Rampage in Stanwood
Can't Miss It: Weekend Edition Nov 20-22
Have you read Wikipedia's article on the Alaskan Way Viaduct lately? Here are the two most recent versions of the opening paragraph. The first is from September 21, last revised by Bibliophylax:
The Alaskan Way Viaduct is an elevated section of Washington State Route 99 that runs along the Elliott Bay waterfront in Seattle's Industrial District and downtown Seattle. It is the smaller of the two major traffic corridors through Seattle, carrying up to 110,000 vehicles per day. Interstate 5, the city's other major traffic corridor, handles about three times as many vehicles. The viaduct runs from S. Nevada Street in the south to the entrance of Belltown's Battery Street Tunnel in the north.This one is from this afternoon:
The Alaskan Way Viaduct is an elevated section of Washington State Route 99 that runs along the Elliott Bay waterfront in Seattle's Industrial District and downtown Seattle. It a primary north-south route through Seattle, carrying 110,000 vehicles per day, or about 20 to 25 percent of traffic traveling through downtown. The only other significant north-south route to and through downtown Seattle is Interstate 5. Interstate 5 handles about three times as many vehicles, but does not have the capacity to add trips searching for an alternative to the viaduct.
The author? A new Wikipedia user named WSDOT Alaskan Way Viaduct Project.
WSDOT Alaskan Way Viaduct Project made some extensive changes to the Wikipedia article, which may very well have been changed again by the time you read this, but you can see all the changes they made here. You may notice a theme: most of the changes argue a pro-tunnel POV.
Was someone in the WSDOT office bored this afternoon, is editing Wikipedia to drum up support for the tunnel option a new WSDOT mandate, or is a tunnel fan naming themselves after the government agency?
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
the motivations are pretty clear, but it's not as if whoever edited the piece is making up facts, either. the clarification that Hwy99 is a primary N-S artery might seem an unnecessary clarification for those of us who live here, but i also think it's routinely ignored by the short-sighted PWC & its supporters.
I blocked the username indefinitely. Thanks for pointing it out.
-Crzrussian, wikipedia administrator
besides adding factual information about the % of traffic it currently serves through downtown, where did the user go wrong (besides his/her name)? these aren't made-up facts.
i understand people's concerns about biased information, but you're only complaining because you don't like the thought processes that will naturally follow from what was added. willful ignorance of factual information because it doesn't support your preference of the surface option doesn't lend credibility to your arguments.
if the person's username had been "joe x" would this have been as big a deal? i may be ranting a bit, but i'm appalled that lines like "a primary N-S route" would be cause for a banning. i'll also point out your own biases - the added text would indicate support for maintaining capacity whether that's retrofit, rebuild, or tunnel.
I think it's pretty clear that by adding "does not have capacity to add trips" whoever edited it is hijacking the entry to comment about the rebuild situation. "does not have capacity" isn't fact, it's opinion. That's like having "does not have the capacity to release an original album" on a Rolling Stones entry or "does not have the capacity to hit a curveball" on Adrian Beltre's.
Dammit, Seth, quit making my points before I get there.
If it's true that I-5 doesn't have the capacity to add trips, there should be a link to evidence supporting that. That's basic Wikipedia style when dealing with info that's not patently obvious.
I also think it's spin to change (later in the article) "money is the major concern" to "a major concern," given that they don't really add other major concerns.
That said, if that's really WSDOT editing the article, I'm glad they were up front about their identity. And all the factual info is great -- but I wish they'd linked to more evidence.
They didn't cite their sources; their username indicated that they may have been the creator of the original information. Wikipedia's No original research policy states:
The block was based solely on the username. In blocking, I did not assess the quality of the information. Tho it's undoubtedly a conflict of interest for them to edit the article, that does not mean their changes must necessarily be reverted.
-Crzrussian