Wikipedia point shooting entry...

[scot]

I'm the creator of the Wikipedia page on point shooting, which contains information on QuickKill, specifically the TT 23-71-1 version. Brownie asked me to help put some more information about QK in the article, and I'm happy to do so. What I'd really like is to see a scanned copy of TT 32-71-1, or at least some scans of images from it. As an example, I have images from Applegate's FMFRP 12-80 showing the use of the Applegate's (and indirectly, Fairbairn and Sykes) methods. I picked FMFRP 12-80 rather than "Get Tough" because being a military publication, the images are (to the best of my knowledge) in the public domain. Anything from TT 23-71-1 should also be public domain, and thus usable on Wikipedia.

If I get enough information on QK, I'd be happy to split it off into a separate article, with more on the methods and history, plus the modern derivatives. For example, if anyone has one of the military marked Daisy QK BB guns, or the later commercial "Quick Skill" guns, I'd love to have some snapshots of that.

Anyone can log in and edit a Wikipedia article, either anonymously or after creating an account. If you have any comments on the article, you can click on the "Discuss this page" link and post to the Talk page, or if you see any errors in the text, you can edit the page and fix them yourself. Currently John Veit of pointshooting.com and I are working on the P&S section, so it's changing on a daily basis right now. Any comments on that section are also welcome.

--scot

p.s. The link to the article is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_shooting

[Brownie]

Welcome to our campfire Scot.

I moved this into the rifle Quick Kill subforum as what you are looking for mainly deals with the rifle system of Quick Kill.

[JMusic]

Scott if you send me your email address I have a copy of Daisys quick skill program along with some military quick kill pictures. I am having problems attaching to this thread.
Jim

[scot]

You can send the images to scot.alexander at gmail.com

Note which images are military (which are public domain) and which are from Daisy (which are copyrighted). If you have any pictures you took yourself, then I'll need to talk with you about how you'd like to deal with those if I want to put one in Wikipedia. Most images there are either public domain or Gnu Free Documentation License.

--scot

[Roundeyesamurai]

Private Message sent.

[JMusic]

Scott this is a training program article listed in Beemans first edition Air gun Edition. If you think you can use it let me know.

[scot]

Any information you think might be helpful, go ahead and send it to me. I'll sort through it, and use whatever I can.

--scot

[Roundeyesamurai]

I've added Quick Fire, Reflexive Fire, and Israeli Method to the Wiki page, and added a little polish to it (I hope you don't mind, Scot; if so, feel free to change).

[kilogulf59]

.....so in essence we have an encyclopedia that anyone can state as fact anything they want?

[Brownie]

KG,

Not sure on that, good question. Perhaps Scot will advise further for the members and clairfy some of the questions we have here.

[Roundeyesamurai]

.....so in essence we have an encyclopedia that anyone can state as fact anything they want?


Essentially correct.

Anyone can say anything on there, but that works both ways. Any other person can come in and remove such information at will, as well.

Likewise, there are a number of grievance procedures on Wikipedia, which range from a challenging statement posted on the top of the article, all the way up to the administration locking the page so that it can't be edited except by them.

[scot]

.....so in essence we have an encyclopedia that anyone can state as fact anything they want?


Yes. It's no different from this forum; you or I can claim anything we want at any time. Will we get away with gross factual errors? It's unlikely, because the other members of the forum can challenge us to produce source information. That is the foundation upon which Wikipedia is formed, if you see ANYTHING that you disagree with, you can go in and change it, remove it, or put in a request for reference materials to back it up. Overall, Wikipeida is fairly reliable--a BBC study found just as many factual errors in the Encyclopedia Britannica as Wikipeida: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm and http://www.legadoassociates.com/wikipedi.htm

This is not to say there aren't problems with the system, as any idiot with an agenga can (and often does) post whatever nonsense or vandalism they want to a page, but as every page is watched by at least one registered Wikipeida editor, those changes are often caught and corrected within minutes. The Wikipedia community is aware of the problems, and they are in fact documented on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliability

I personally think Wikipedia is one of the greates resources on the 'net; for all its flaws, there is no other online source of knowledge that compares. The only caveat is that you should double-check the data you find there. Often, that is as simple as clicking the links in the article, or going to a library and looking up a book referenced in the article.

If you're concerned about the point shooting article, the best thing you can do is get involved with it. You don't even have to have an account to enter the discussion. The link to the discussion page on the point shooting article is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Point_shooting

--scot

[Brownie]

Thanks Scot,

I think that answers a lot of questions. If members have further need for information about Wikipedia, they should send you a PM on this site.