Fixing Wikipedia - question #2

[TrueJim]

When I look at the taekwondo pages on Wikipedia, I see a number of errors that to me seem like easy fixes. I was thinking at taking a crack at fixing them, but I wanted to run these thoughts by some other martial artists first. I've checked the Talk pages on these wiki articles, but none of the recent online chatter is from martial artists.

Regarding the page on forms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyeong

1. If you look at the comparable pages regarding Karate forms, you see that each form is given its own wiki page. Often that page is short, but still...each form has its own page. Is that something that should be done for Taekwondo forms as well? Or is there just less to say about Taekwondo forms?

2. A lot of the forms in the Tang Soo Do section of that wiki page are also Karate forms, albeit by a different name. In that case, I'd be inclined to just link to the wiki page for the corresponding Karate form, and make sure the Karate page mentions that this form is also used in Tang Soo Do (by a different name).

3. Or I could be more bold, and adopt a tabular format like this one: Taekwondo Forms - Taekwondo Wiki Personally, I like the tabular format (but I'm biased...I put it together). What are your thoughts? Do you like the way the Wikipedia page handles forms better, or the way the Taekwondo Wikia does?

 

[Earl Weiss]

1. If you look at the comparable pages regarding Karate forms, you see that each form is given its own wiki page. Often that page is short, but still...each form has its own page. Is that something that should be done for Taekwondo forms as well? Or is there just less to say about Taekwondo forms?

Can't speak to all systems that refer to themselves as TKD (perhaps originaly MDK, CDk, TSD etc.) but the Chang Hon forms use one Volume for 3 forms in General Choi's encyclopedia which includes photos, stepping diagrams and applications but not basic instructions for each move which are contained in other volumes. No real need for another explanation since the encyclopedia ia available on line.

 

[Dirty Dog]

3. Or I could be more bold, and adopt a tabular format like this one: Taekwondo Forms - Taekwondo Wiki Personally, I like the tabular format (but I'm biased...I put it together). What are your thoughts? Do you like the way the Wikipedia page handles forms better, or the way the Taekwondo Wikia does?

You need to fix the table. There is no such thing as WTF Taekwondo.

 

[TrueJim]

Good point. If you look at the Kata pages on Wikipedia, they don't describe how to perform the forms. In fact, they're not even allowed to. Wikipedia guidelines don't allow Wikipedia pages to be How To pages. The Kata pages on Wikipedia just describe what the form is, any historical notes about the form, other names its known by, etc. Often each Kata page is only one paragraph long, since there's often just not that much to say about a form (outside of how to perform it). So my thinking was that perhaps the same thing should be done for Taekwondo forms; I'm just not sure there's enough to say about a lot of the forms for that to make sense though, so I'm still mulling that project over.

 

[TrueJim]

You need to fix the table. There is no such thing as WTF Taekwondo.

Another good point. Technically anybody can fix that, since it's a wiki and editable by anyone. But your point is taken: should it say WTF or Kukkiwon? I'm still of two minds on this point. (1) On the one hand, people that aren't that familiar with taekwondo are most likely to look for the information by the name WTF. So my thinking is to call it by what people would look for it as, and then once they find it, correct their thinking in the article. But then, doesn't that just perpetuate their misconception? (2) But if I call something by a name that most people are less familiar with, they won't find the information at all, in which case, how will I ever get a chance to correct them?

In the end I went with the Webster's Dictionary philosophy: language is how people do use the words, not how the words were originally intended to be used. So for better or worse I went with route (1), calling things WTF quite often, but then taking opportunities whenever I did to say, "But really you should call it Kukkiwon taekwondo..." I'll work on making that more explicit though...good call.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Another good point. Technically anybody can fix that, since it's a wiki and editable by anyone. But your point is taken: should it say WTF or Kukkiwon? I'm still of two minds on this point. (1) On the one hand, people that aren't that familiar with taekwondo are most likely to look for the information by the name WTF. So my thinking is to call it by what people would look for it as, and then once they find it, correct their thinking in the article. But then, doesn't that just perpetuate their misconception? (2) But if I call something by a name that most people are less familiar with, they won't find the information at all, in which case, how will I ever get a chance to correct them?

In the end I went with the Webster's Dictionary philosophy: language is how people do use the words, not how the words were originally intended to be used. So for better or worse I went with route (1), calling things WTF quite often, but then taking opportunities whenever I did to say, "But really you should call it Kukkiwon taekwondo..." I'll work on making that more explicit though...good call.

They are completely different organizations, with completely different functions. Kukkiwon sets standards and tracks rank (Dan ranks only). The WTF is a sporting group that sets no standards, and awards no rank. It is Kukkiwon TKD. No matter how many people ignorantly refer to WTF TKD, it remains incorrect to do so. It's like referring to an NFL baseball.

 

[tshadowchaser]

Wiki has many things posted that are not correct or opinions of one set of people trying to promote something.
If you fell there needs to be a correction or links that would be of help do so and maybe help out the next person that looks up the subject.

 

[TrueJim]

They are completely different organizations, with completely different functions. Kukkiwon sets standards and tracks rank (Dan ranks only). The WTF is a sporting group that sets no standards, and awards no rank. It is Kukkiwon TKD. No matter how many people ignorantly refer to WTF TKD, it remains incorrect to do so. It's like referring to an NFL baseball.

Oh believe me, I'm not disagreeing with you. It's the classic problem of Accuracy vs Clarity. It boils down to: do you make the information easy to find (using names people are likely to recognize) and then correct the reader's misinformation; or do you make the information more correct in the first place, but potentially harder to find?

But back to the topic...do you have any thoughts on the Hyeong page as it stands on Wikipedia now? I'm willing to take a crack at making it better, but before I tackle that -- and since there are no Wikipedia editors currently working in the taekwondo area -- I wanted to get some other folks' thoughts. This forum appears to be one of the more active taekwondo forums on the internet, so getting the thoughts of the folks here seems like a good first step.