[Wade Whitehead]

I've been struck, especially since taking a more focused and recent look, by the significant lack of information on Wikipedia about golf courses most discussed on GCA and, more generally, on golf architecture and architects.

For example, the article on Cypress Point is essentially a scorecard.  Garden City's is a single sentence.  There is no article on Mike Strantz.

Current architects and well-known courses that permit public play seem to have more robust articles; this may be the result of their own involvement in editing as a means of marketing.

For what reasons have more astute GCAers refrained from building Wikipedia's contribution?  Do sites like this (GCA) serve the need?  Is there little - or no - interest in providing that sort of information in a more public (or at least popular) forum?

Just wondering what the reasons might be, assuming they even exist.

WW

[Kyle Harris]

There are a few factors.

First, Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia and not source for publication of original research. As such, a lot of the club histories and other information are not well represented in popular, peer-reviewed, published works. Articles on Wikipedia not containing a wealth of encyclopedic citation are ultimately tagged for cleanup and usually either heavily edited so the content represents a more encyclopedic entry until original research is published elsewhere. 

[rboyce]

i've had this same thought many times. someone should create a wikigolf.com or similar and let the public start building a collection of knowledge on public and private courses.

Include: History, course description, fees, pictures, locations, maps, legends, etc. etc.

course aficionados could even house their big course debates on this site and present varying opinions for the reader's evaluation.

there has got to plenty of off the shelf wiki software that could be customized to create this service fairly easily and inexpensively. just put the template out there and let the golf world fill it. well, don't look at me.

 

[Wade Whitehead]

Just wondering: Is there interest in rboyce's idea: a template for creating and sharing "articles" on golf courses, complete with features like GoogleMaps links, histories, hole-by-hole, etc., with a focus on depth rather than breadth, and geared more towards a treehouse kind of crowd than a Sports Illustrated reader?

The thought interests me.

WW

[Kyle Harris]

Just wondering: Is there interest in rboyce's idea: a template for creating and sharing "articles" on golf courses, complete with features like GoogleMaps links, histories, hole-by-hole, etc., with a focus on depth rather than breadth, and geared more towards a treehouse kind of crowd than a Sports Illustrated reader?

The thought interests me.

WW

Quite interested.

[Tim_Cronin]

Something like that would take a lot of server space, bandwidth, whatever the techie term is. And that would cost money. I don't know what Ran pays to keep this site running (thanks, Ran!), but it's got to be more than $9.95 a month. Now imagine a site with, eventually, tens of thousands of pages, illustrations, etc. Yikes!

[Michael Mimran]

Why not just use Wikipedia?  Every course would have it's own page....and it's free.

[Matthew Rose]

It'd be nice to see more info on Wiki, not just about courses but archies as well.

I was disappointed to see nothing on Ken Killian there, who just passed away. There was a very small (one paragraph) blurb on his partner, Dick Nugent. Obviously the Dyes and Doaks have a little more on their pages.

I've tweaked some course pages from time to time, usually courses that have been renovated recently.

[Wade Whitehead]

Why not just use Wikipedia?  Every course would have it's own page....and it's free.

So, back to my original question: Why haven't GCAers been more active on Wikipedia?

Why aren't there better articles on great courses and architects?

WW

[Kyle Harris]

I wrote and still watch over the article on the Penn State Golf Courses.

We should probably put together an encyclopedic article on Cobbs Creek.

[Steve Lang]

  Why aren't there more gca.comer's writing my home course reviews for gca.com??  focus, focus, focus.. time, time, time

[Emil Weber]

This isnot true for the German version of Wikipedia - Ulrich Mayring has written some great articles about the Golden Age, the architects, links golf....

[John_Conley]

Wikipedia was working just great for golf, but the pages for Michelle Wie, The Bridge, and Merion were changed back and forth so often that a few computers in St. Petersburg flat-out melted.  Jimmy Wales found this a poor use of their donated resources so golf is off the table now.

[Phil_the_Author]

"Wikipedia was working just great for golf, but the pages for Michelle Wie, The Bridge, and Merion were changed back and forth so often that a few computers in St. Petersburg flat-out melted.  Jimmy Wales found this a poor use of their donated resources so golf is off the table now."

MERION strikes again!

[Steve Kline]

Why not just use Wikipedia?  Every course would have it's own page....and it's free.

So, back to my original question: Why haven't GCAers been more active on Wikipedia?

Why aren't there better articles on great courses and architects?

WW

Because I've only been to Wikipedia once in my life. I come here for info about architects and golf courses.

[Christoph Meister]

This isnot true for the German version of Wikipedia - Ulrich Mayring has written some great articles about the Golden Age, the architects, links golf....

That's true - I can confirm it!

Christoph

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()