Clearly written by a Wahoo, this Wikipedia page seems overly biased towards the school in Charlottesville. I thought the scholars here at TKP could take a look and make some edits.
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
I'm allll for hatin' on LOLuva, but I honestly don't see clear bias in the page. Maybe with O&M glasses on it seems that way, but I think the average Joe from like, Kansas, wouldn't think anything of it...
I looked at this a ways back and also noticed a clear Wahoo bias.
Not to the point of being factually incorrect, but I agree - clearly written by a Wahoo.
I mean it's wiki. Edit it.
They've gotta win somehow I guess? It does seem particularly UVA loving
It's the little picks and jabs which aren't untrue, but definitely superfluous. For example:
Very hoo-ish.
Meh, very every other day in here as well...tbh.
Send that snippet to Nike along with some sign of UA interest. That line might seem Hoo-ish, but our deal is significantly less and it is also crap.
Better yet, send it to Whit. He's the guy who needs ammunition for the renegotiation.
I think he knows. It's probably his only major gaffe since becoming AD.
Though VT's contract ends sooner, which means that they could definitely get a bump up sooner.
It is a rivalry page. On its own I think this is actually fair makes sense. Now in context with the rest of the entry...
I like how the overall series is mostly LOLUVA blue, but the latest result in most sports is maroon. Means the programs aren't as far apart as the wiki article or the snobs make it seem.
Also, why does the article happen to point out that the snobs had a higher revenue in some random year? Why not point out their abysmal football attendance?
Definitely written by a Hoo and biased towards them, but not factually incorrect.
I think Hokies forget that our athletic strengths are relatively young in comparison. If you think back to playing UVA before the 90s in all sports, you would realize that this being all blue is not surprising.
The big takeaway for me, was the change. It's mainly maroon now, which means we are trending in the right direction and can start leveling out some of these records.
I would extend that to 2004 when we joined the ACC. Before that, most of our other teams were hot garbage. We were a Big East cellar dweller in basketball, and hadn't had any sustained success in any other sport except football.
38-0 bro
I don't really see any misinformation here, but it is definitely cherry-picked to favor UVA. Not sure when this page was updated, but I know I've looked at it over the past couple years and it wasn't like this.
Details like the Nike deal aren't relevant -- I could easily go in and add that VT had been selected as a "Pro Combat" school for Nike and due to football success, was not given any performance incentives while UVA, was given football performance incentives due to a lack of general success.
Not sure where Virginians are selecting UVA as their program of choice is coming from. I see more people wearing VT apparel than UVA; even see more JMU and GMU for that matter.
The thing I'm picking up most from a skim of the article is the overemphasis on the fact that we won the Commonwealth Clash via tiebreaker in '16-'17. Asterisks every time it's mentioned, as if tiebreakers aren't in place for a reason and don't decide a distinct winner/loser.
Agreed, the asterisk is used to delegitimize the win that year. Sorry Hoos, if your teams were better in 16-17 you would have won the cup. Someone needs to edit the qualifiers away. Let it be mentioned in one spot on the table.
How else would you explain that we won that year despite being tied 11-11? Some explanation is required, and generally that's done with an asterisk or some other symbol to link to a note somewhere below.
Called out on the maroon/blue listing that reads "VT wins, 11-11*" is fine and a very normal reference.
Saying, "The series is tied 2-2*" has a definitive feel of butt hurt-ness. That's all we were getting at. It's reiterated several times when, in fact, VT just won that year, regardless of the means by which they did so.
What I always find interesting is that after the loss in '98, it was a really close series (39-36-5). And now 20 years later it's just about gotten out of hand for the hoos.
The old man in me wonders who goes to Wikipedia to find stuff out? Why?
Because it is a comprehensive site that has a ton of information on it about a multitude of topics. Repeatedly in blind studies, it has been shown to be about as factually correct as the major encyclopedias, and it can hold many times more information and is updated constantly.
I used to hate in grade school when teachers wouldn't let you use Wikipedia as a source. I always thought that was kind of BS. I would just find what I liked from Wikipedia, look at the cited source, and then go directly to that link. No different.
I was in middle school when it first started getting popular and using it as a source was a sure fire way to get points docked. But it made since back then. It wasn't curated very well and lots of factually inaccurate stuff could stay on there for a long time before being noticed or gotten to. I mean we changed to moons composition to various cheeses and it stuck around for almost a week before getting changed back.
But that's all moot because the goal was to get us to verify sources and cross check validity. Wiki does all that for you so it really doesn't help with the point of a lot of papers.
Who uses wikipedia?
OK, thanks for the input. My impressions of Wikipedia were formed a while back, and while I've come upon it occasionally when searching for information, it's had a negative connotation for me from what seems to be its "early days". I am so distrustful of internet information that isn't from a source I decide to, or have reason to trust, I know I may miss some useful sites. For me, ''Fake News" and the internet are inextricably entwined, and I am wary of relying on much that's available online.
As for using it in school, I came from a time when they wouldn't let you use a calculator in class, so I have that disadvantage (?) of skepticality and dismissiveness about much of the internet in general that folks these days don't seem to have. Old and in the way, I guess.
Wikipedia was founded on the principles of truth and impartiality. They have a large and dedicated group of volunteers that monitor the site for changes to verify that they are relevant and verifiable from other reputable sources. Now, obviously some inaccuracies can slip through, but the vast majority are caught within hours and reverted.