This is why we can't have nice things!

quellish

quellish

I don’t read The Drive. The Drive reads me.
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
6 August 2007
Messages
3,859
Reaction score
5,795
An excellent example of why you should not use Wikipedia as a source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstar_(spaceplane)

I'd like to think most people who frequent SPF could point out clear factual problems with that page. I know of several others in this subject area that are similar. For every correct, well referenced wikipedia page, there are well over 100 like this.

Internet makes me sad!
 
quellish said:
An excellent example of why you should not use Wikipedia as a source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstar_(spaceplane)

I'd like to think most people who frequent SPF could point out clear factual problems with that page. I know of several others in this subject area that are similar. For every correct, well referenced wikipedia page, there are well over 100 like this.

Internet makes me sad!
Click to expand...

Page is down now, so I guess someone must have decided it was dubious enough...
 
Okay... Thanks! Now quite frankly, I was expecting something awful from what was written in the first post, and honestly I have no problem with this article. It doesn't present the Blackstar program as fact, it gives the references of the sources and clearly states that they have been questioned and found dubious by some. It is a detailed account of all that has been said about this would-be program and how it may relate to other alleged programs like the Brilliant Buzzard. What is it you find so wrong about this page?
 
Stargazer2006 said:
Okay... Thanks! Now quite frankly, I was expecting something awful from what was written in the first post, and honestly I have no problem with this article. It doesn't present the Blackstar program as fact, it gives the references of the sources and clearly states that they have been questioned and found dubious by some. It is a detailed account of all that has been said about this would-be program and how it may relate to other alleged programs like the Brilliant Buzzard. What is it you find so wrong about this page?
Click to expand...

I agree with Stargazer.
The article treats the subject like an "urban legend" suspend any judge on the matter waiting for both defintive proof of its existence or the definitive proof of its invention.

Anyway Wiki is full of article like this, of course, but usually there is always a disclaimer about the possible unthruth of the subject.
 
Then try to search for the Dassault nEUROn "that was inspired by the B-2 bomber" "is capable of the Mach 5" or "is going into production", or that crap: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-PFI_Soviet/Russian_aircraft_projects#LFI that is based (shame on me) on my very old and now very inaccurate diagram, that I did when I first joined the ATS forum years ago ::).
 
the Neuron article states mach 0.8? It does have "inspired by B-2" though..
Probably the most outlandish claims were culled. I'm not saying Wikipedia is always correct....
 
Matej said:
*now* it states Mach 0,8, because it was only one of the dozens of the things, that the moderators were kindly allowing to correct!
Click to expand...

Not only, but it is necessary to add that only the 50% of the project is French, the other 50% belongs to several other countries like Italy (Alenia Aeronautica), Sweden (SAAB), Spain (CASA), Greece (EAB) and also Switzerland (RUAG).

The contribution of Alenia Aeronautica it is very important considering the big amount of work conducted with the Sky-X and Sky-Y programmes.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom