|
I put a section about nanovna in the network analyzers article of
Wikipedia. It was erased (reverted) and whoever did it commented
"promotional, not a catalog of cheap test gear."
|
There are people who feel that they have enforcement "rights" over certain Wikipedia articles, regardless of the quality of the content.
There's a particular subject area where I'm likely the world's foremost expert and my edits to related articles kept being reverted, even though I posted citations or even embedded images of the actual documents showing that I was correct.
Wikipedia used to be "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". They dropped "that anyone can edit" a long time ago, so they're at least admitting that it is a closed club. I don't feel it is worth the effort to try to keep articles factually accurate in the face of the mob.
|
I suspect that Wikipedia did not erase it, another editor erased it.
I would create a new article called ¡°NanoVNA¡± and put a link to the Network Anayzers page. You should have more success¡
But, make sure that you have good citations and images or another editor might have issues.
Larry
AC9OX
|
Wikipedia is a trash pile but if you really want to write an
article there, pepper it with sources. Anything, practically, passes
as a source.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 at 02:09, MRH <wildwoodflower@...> wrote: I put a section about nanovna in the network analyzers article of
Wikipedia. It was erased (reverted) and whoever did it commented
"promotional, not a catalog of cheap test gear."
|
Larry--Thanks for the suggestion. Over several years I have batted zero trying to start new articles, which is why I just put a 3-line description in the Network Analyzer article with 3 references. Terry--I agree. Life's too short. On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 9:13 PM Larry McElhiney via groups.io <lmcelhiney= [email protected]> wrote: I suspect that Wikipedia did not erase it, another editor erased it.
I would create a new article called ¡°NanoVNA¡± and put a link to the
Network Anayzers page. You should have more success¡
But, make sure that you have good citations and images or another editor
might have issues.
Larry
AC9OX
|
On Monday 17 January 2022 08:03:20 pm MRH wrote: I put a section about nanovna in the network analyzers article of
Wikipedia. It was erased (reverted) and whoever did it commented
"promotional, not a catalog of cheap test gear." I have pages online full of datasheets, and put references to them on several Wikipedia pages. Those changes were reversed as well. I un-did the reversal, and commented to the effect that if somebody saw a problem with them they should talk to me about it. Never heard anything back from them, and the last time I looked they were still there... -- Member of the toughest, meanest, deadliest, most unrelenting -- and ablest -- form of life in this section of space, ?a critter that can be killed but can't be tamed. ?--Robert A. Heinlein, "The Puppet Masters" - Information is more dangerous than cannon to a society ruled by lies. --James M Dakin
|
QUOTE FROM THE WIKIPEDIA REPLY: ".... , not a catalog of cheap test gear."
I'll throw in another 'hypothesis": The NANOVNAs don't cost enough (they
are selling very well, so, PLEASE, don't increase the price just to satisfy
some misguided stuffed shirt - please....). There is a real perception
that something which comes in around $50 to $200 just can't be any good.
After all, look at the prices of similar instruments from
HP/Agilent/Keysite, R&S, Tektronix, RigExpert (??) to mention a few. How
can it possibly be any good costing so little.....it must be "junk".
Well, many of us, myself included, have done A / B comparisons of the NANOs
against the more "respected" and very expensive equivalents from the big
boys. Within their strengths and weaknesses (both the NANOs and the $$$$
units), they compare very favorably.
During my career I once worked for an electronic "widget" company that
introduced our products at cost + labor + engineering + ........ to the
marketplace. It didn't sell too well against the competition which was
priced some 10X and upward over our offerings. We hired a consultant. You
guessed it. The product was just too "cheap" and viewed as sub-standard
for that reason alone. So, we massively raised our profit margin (feeling
guilty), and it began to sell. Once it was "discovered" in the
marketplace, we could not keep up with orders.
QED - from experience.
Dave - W?LEV
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 1:09 AM MRH <wildwoodflower@...> wrote: I put a section about nanovna in the network analyzers article of
Wikipedia. It was erased (reverted) and whoever did it commented
"promotional, not a catalog of cheap test gear."
--
*Dave - W?LEV*
*Just Let Darwin Work*
|
Hi Dave,
You are absolutely correct, people perceive cost (cheapness) to similar quality. Big mistake on their part. True Story: As a side business a friend of mine and me purchased government surplus. Sometimes we got lucky and got totally unused test equipment. We picked up 3 HP 436A for ~$150 total. We put them up on the web site for $450 ea. A customer called and asked if the 3 sensors that were part of that kit number were included. We said we didn't know but would check. They were in the bottom of the box which we had not investigated. (our bad) We told him they were and could have the whole kit at our advertised price. He said he'd think it over.
Keep in mind that HP was selling this set for approximately $6,000 EACH. The guy never called back, probably thought they were stolen at that price. We raised the price to $3,000 EACH and they all sold within a week. Bottom line, "yes people can be STUPID". His bad, he could have had the 436 for a song. Question: Why would a surplus outfit (us) take a chance of selling stolen equipment at a ridiculous price? Live and learn. Sorry to be so long winded but that's only one of many stories in the surplus business. (I'm getting too old for this stuff, that's why I'm trying to put myself out of business)
Mike C.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 1/18/2022 12:54 PM, W0LEV wrote: QUOTE FROM THE WIKIPEDIA REPLY: ".... , not a catalog of cheap test gear."
I'll throw in another 'hypothesis": The NANOVNAs don't cost enough (they
are selling very well, so, PLEASE, don't increase the price just to satisfy
some misguided stuffed shirt - please....). There is a real perception
that something which comes in around $50 to $200 just can't be any good.
After all, look at the prices of similar instruments from
HP/Agilent/Keysite, R&S, Tektronix, RigExpert (??) to mention a few. How
can it possibly be any good costing so little.....it must be "junk".
Well, many of us, myself included, have done A / B comparisons of the NANOs
against the more "respected" and very expensive equivalents from the big
boys. Within their strengths and weaknesses (both the NANOs and the $$$$
units), they compare very favorably.
During my career I once worked for an electronic "widget" company that
introduced our products at cost + labor + engineering + ........ to the
marketplace. It didn't sell too well against the competition which was
priced some 10X and upward over our offerings. We hired a consultant. You
guessed it. The product was just too "cheap" and viewed as sub-standard
for that reason alone. So, we massively raised our profit margin (feeling
guilty), and it began to sell. Once it was "discovered" in the
marketplace, we could not keep up with orders.
QED - from experience.
Dave - W?LEV
On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 1:09 AM MRH <wildwoodflower@...> wrote:
I put a section about nanovna in the network analyzers article of
Wikipedia. It was erased (reverted) and whoever did it commented
"promotional, not a catalog of cheap test gear."
|
In a similar vein I have had people tell me about setting a perfectly good unneeded household item on the curb with a "free" sign on it. After being there for a while with lots of traffic but no takers they put a sign on it that read $20 and quickly had a taker. I wasn't fooled by this recently. At a hamfest an old guy had a minty vintage 6 Meter Yaesu SSB rig on a table with a "free" sign. He mumbled something about missing crystals. Yeah, right... It had been there a while and I actually stood by the table chatting with an old friend for several minutes before I said to heck with it and grabbed it. With original box, manual, mic, and the unobtanium but much sought power cord. Well, guess what? No crystals were missing. As I suspected what he was seeing was the empty fixed frequency crystal sockets on the top side. All the original het crystals are there. RX and TX work and power output is at spec. Alignment needs a little touch-up but I'm not gonna ask for my money back. :) Cost does not necessarily reflect value. 73 -Jim NU0C On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 21:21:25 -0500 "Mike C." <mg@...> wrote: You are absolutely correct, people perceive cost (cheapness) to similar
quality. Big mistake on their part. True Story: As a side business a
friend of mine and me purchased government surplus.
|
On 18/1/22 09:26, Larry McElhiney via groups.io wrote: I suspect that Wikipedia did not erase it, another editor erased it.
I would create a new article called ¡°NanoVNA¡± and put a link to the Network Anayzers page. You should have more success¡
But, make sure that you have good citations and images or another editor might have issues. A poorly understood fact about Wikipedia is that it has extensive quality documentation against which edits are evaluated. Yes, anyone can edit, but if an individual contribution doesn't make the grade then someone will likely remove it (or fix it if they can do so quickly). Lack of citations is likely to be a problem, but the biggest stumbling block tends to be notability, a topic on which the documentation is enormous. The fact that a contributor is very enthusiastic about a topic (a book, their employer, a type of test equipment, ...) doesn't make it notable. Misuse of Wikipedia as a promotional platform is rampant, so it is generally the proponent's burden to demonstrate notability. Fortunately the criteria are public and are generally objective enough to work with, even if it time-consuming to do so. Assume a couple of days' work to perform and document the research to make the case for notability in the course of writing the initial version of an article. I wouldn't care to hazard a guess whether NanoVNAs would qualify. Even with repeated mentions by ARRL, they're still a niche item. - Roland 9V1RT
|
If Wikipedia does not want the NanoVNA entry, please consider using the IEEE sponsored www.ethw.org history wiki. It's the perfect repository for articles, photos, sound and vision..
Being an IEEE Member gains you automatic access, (non-members can request access thru the web master in Piscataway), and naturally, no advertising, promotions, games. It's a great resource I facilitated back in 2014.. It's intended as a history wiki, and contains a lot of ham content... and of course, if its more than a day old - it's history ! Please consider.
David Burger
IEEE History Committee, Past Chair.
|
I am with Dragan - I found an article that lacked a complete history and what was there was incorrect. I tried to get it corrected and expanded, but I guess the original author had more clout so all my enhancements were rejected.
I worked on a military system in the late 1960s which is and has always been incorrectly described on WikiPedia and I have stopped trying to rectify the fiction.
Bob R - N7WY
|
Next try on (electrical) - this time with focus on use in university education - ref is a paper of ASEE (American Society of Engineer Education).
From this point we can increase carefully.
|
Larry McElhiney
Mike C.
Jim Shorney
n7wy
Ho-Ro