Post by blissyu2 on Nov 28, 2008 22:20:44 GMT -5
See also: catonine.virtue.nu/wiki/icl.html and encyc.org/wiki/ICL
Wikipedia's article on the Indian Cricket League (ICL) is wrong.
The ICL is a league that has had so far 7 tournaments spread out over 2 series, with 2 showcase tournaments as the main tournaments. Wikipedia has stated that there have been 3 tournaments and 3 series. Wikipedia is wrong.
In March 2008, the ICL decided to run a challenger tournament, which was their 3rd tournament (their 2nd tournament was a 50 over a side tournament). This challenger tournament was designed to showcase the Lahore Badshahs, a team from Pakistan who was aiming to oppose the Indian ICL teams. As it turned out, in spite of winning most matches, Lahore was knocked out in the semi finals. Perhaps because this 3rd tournament in the 1st series was run at a similar time to the rival IPL (Indian Premier League), a few people incorrectly thought that the challenger series was the ICL's main showcase tournament. It actually wasn't. It was actually a side tournament.
We can perhaps forgive Wikipedia for being confused. The ICL actually had 7 tournaments and what Wikipedia claims is the 2nd tournament is actually the 3rd. But most importantly, Wikipedia claims that there were 3 series while actually there are only 2. Wikipedia has gone so far as to incorrectly label the challenger tournament as being their 2nd series, "the 2008 ICL tournament". Woopsies!
The problem is that if anyone had been to look at the ICL's official page, it is pretty easy to find that in actual fact they are wrong. Wikipedia links to the pages that say quite clearly that they are wrong, yet they have still managed to put in the wrong information.
Not only that, but if anyone was watching the 2nd series (the 6th tournament), the 2nd showcase tournament, all of the commentators say that this is the 2nd series, not the 3rd as Wikipedia says. Indeed, everywhere, aside from Wikipedia and places which have copied Wikipedia, says that Wikipedia is wrong.
This isn't petty vandalism. This entry was made in March 2008, 8 months ago. It isn't unnoticed either. Based on this error, they made a separate article which was incorrectly titled in April 2008. The article has been edited 800 times since the error was introduced, yet nobody has corrected it.
This error isn't minor either. It isn't controversial, and it isn't the kind of thing that someone who knows the topic wouldn't notice. This changes the very facts of the article itself.
If someone hadn't bothered to go to the ICL official site, or to look at all of the thousands of places that tell you that there were 2 series, not 3, and that the challenger series was a side tournament, then you might believe Wikipedia. You could write a school project based on Wikipedia's errors. Newspapers could write reports based on it.
A lot of people have tried to tell me that I am wrong about Wikipedia's Port Arthur massacre article being the victim of truth-changing, especially since Wikipedia's false article on that topic is getting increasingly large amounts of publicity pretending that it is true. Perhaps that is too complex to understand. But this issue isn't. There are TWO series, but Wikipedia claims that there are 3.
What is your excuse, Wikipedia? Who was writing that article? How could you get it so horribly, horribly wrong?
I can just imagine how long it would take to fix up their screw ups.
Wikipedia's article on the Indian Cricket League (ICL) is wrong.
The ICL is a league that has had so far 7 tournaments spread out over 2 series, with 2 showcase tournaments as the main tournaments. Wikipedia has stated that there have been 3 tournaments and 3 series. Wikipedia is wrong.
In March 2008, the ICL decided to run a challenger tournament, which was their 3rd tournament (their 2nd tournament was a 50 over a side tournament). This challenger tournament was designed to showcase the Lahore Badshahs, a team from Pakistan who was aiming to oppose the Indian ICL teams. As it turned out, in spite of winning most matches, Lahore was knocked out in the semi finals. Perhaps because this 3rd tournament in the 1st series was run at a similar time to the rival IPL (Indian Premier League), a few people incorrectly thought that the challenger series was the ICL's main showcase tournament. It actually wasn't. It was actually a side tournament.
We can perhaps forgive Wikipedia for being confused. The ICL actually had 7 tournaments and what Wikipedia claims is the 2nd tournament is actually the 3rd. But most importantly, Wikipedia claims that there were 3 series while actually there are only 2. Wikipedia has gone so far as to incorrectly label the challenger tournament as being their 2nd series, "the 2008 ICL tournament". Woopsies!
The problem is that if anyone had been to look at the ICL's official page, it is pretty easy to find that in actual fact they are wrong. Wikipedia links to the pages that say quite clearly that they are wrong, yet they have still managed to put in the wrong information.
Not only that, but if anyone was watching the 2nd series (the 6th tournament), the 2nd showcase tournament, all of the commentators say that this is the 2nd series, not the 3rd as Wikipedia says. Indeed, everywhere, aside from Wikipedia and places which have copied Wikipedia, says that Wikipedia is wrong.
This isn't petty vandalism. This entry was made in March 2008, 8 months ago. It isn't unnoticed either. Based on this error, they made a separate article which was incorrectly titled in April 2008. The article has been edited 800 times since the error was introduced, yet nobody has corrected it.
This error isn't minor either. It isn't controversial, and it isn't the kind of thing that someone who knows the topic wouldn't notice. This changes the very facts of the article itself.
If someone hadn't bothered to go to the ICL official site, or to look at all of the thousands of places that tell you that there were 2 series, not 3, and that the challenger series was a side tournament, then you might believe Wikipedia. You could write a school project based on Wikipedia's errors. Newspapers could write reports based on it.
A lot of people have tried to tell me that I am wrong about Wikipedia's Port Arthur massacre article being the victim of truth-changing, especially since Wikipedia's false article on that topic is getting increasingly large amounts of publicity pretending that it is true. Perhaps that is too complex to understand. But this issue isn't. There are TWO series, but Wikipedia claims that there are 3.
What is your excuse, Wikipedia? Who was writing that article? How could you get it so horribly, horribly wrong?
I can just imagine how long it would take to fix up their screw ups.