Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on WSDOT spinning Wikipedia?


The revision is more accurate and more apropos than the original.

Posted by Fnarf | October 27, 2006 4:31 PM

Yeah, there's no reason for such a revision or politicizing a damn Wikipedia entry, which is sadly too common with the big wiki.

I find the viaduct an important corridor but I'm not about to go as far as to manipulate what's supposed to be referential info.

Posted by Gomez | October 27, 2006 4:38 PM

LOL Fnarf. While #2 is accurate, it does not serve Wikipedia's purpose, which is to define an item on a basic, informational level.

Posted by Gomez | October 27, 2006 4:40 PM

gomez, that's not true, that's what is for.

Posted by seattl98104 | October 27, 2006 4:54 PM

Don't tell me what Wikipedia is for. As long as the entry is supported by evidence, isn't original research, and isn't what they call "POV" (point of view), it's OK. "Basic" doesn't enter into it. The last sentence of the quoted paragraph may be slightly POV (as it is begging the question) but less so than the first version, which begs the same question.

Posted by Fnarf | October 27, 2006 4:58 PM

I think it is a fine entry except removing mention of the surface street option was lame. I fixed that. Someone who knows more about it than I do should feel free to correct me.

Posted by mason | October 27, 2006 5:05 PM

Gomez, i take your point, but i agree that the second of the entries paints a more accurate picture.

Posted by Lloyd Clydesdale | October 27, 2006 5:19 PM

Is there a Wikipedia entry for pregnant sex?

Posted by Dougsf | October 27, 2006 5:37 PM

To clarify: The second comment's last point should be made in a separate paragraph, perhaps in the part discussing its history, in the context of the city's plans for replacement.

Posted by Gomez | October 27, 2006 7:50 PM

i'm surprised that no one has commented on the terrible writing quality of the revision. "...but does not have the capacity to add trips searching for an alternative to the viaduct." the trips are searching?

Posted by dna | October 28, 2006 12:24 AM

I've never been clear on how the 'surface option' is supposed to improve access to the shore. At least you can walk underneath the viaduct to get there. 110,000 trips per day is nearly what I-405 carries. How would you like to try to dash across *that* highway to get to the waterfront?

Posted by Orv | October 28, 2006 1:15 AM

What am I missing?

There are 3 accurate sentences in the first version.

The 2nd sentence is about how much MORE significant I-5 is than the Viaduct:

"Interstate 5, the city’s other major traffic corridor, handles about three times as many vehicles."

The 3rd is simply where it runs:

"The viaduct runs from S. Nevada Street in the south to the entrance of Belltown’s Battery Street Tunnel in the north."

The 1st is accurate about the capacity number and it says that it is one of 2 major corridors through Seattle which it is.

"It is the smaller of the two major traffic corridors through Seattle, carrying up to 110,000 vehicles per day."

I think my reading comprehension abilities are at least average - so I don't get the statement that it overemphasizes the Viaduct's importance. Which words in these 3 sentences do that?

Posted by LH | October 28, 2006 2:45 AM

HA! Nevermind on my (below) average reading comprehension...duh, it's the 2nd one that's being debated. Boy my face is red.

Whatever, the Viaduct is the best fucking road in the City. It's a great route, the first drive I take someone in from out of town to show off my beautiful city, and it's hardly ever at a traffic stand still.

Over-estimating the importance of the Viaduct? Weill, I'm tired of people over-estimating the importance of the noise of the Viaduct, it's esthetics, (Savage, is there anything more ugly and beautifully gritty that the El? Who cares? It works.) I'm disgusted with the over-emphasis on the ability of the surface route or the tunnel to "open the city to the waterfront." BULLSHIT. Walk down there, you can "access the waterfront" just fine.

We're so stupid to be buying this "make it world class" nonsense that happens in every city in the county on a cycle - convention centers, stadiums, now waterfronts. They're tearing down elevated highways everywhere, so THAT makes it an important thing do do?

Pshaw, it's sad that it's progressives that are buying the same "other cities" line for the viaduct that many of you have been critical about when used in the "other cities are tearing down their decades old stadiums" way.

Posted by LH | October 28, 2006 3:02 AM

The whole mantra of "opening the city to the water" is a triumph of rhetorical trickery. It is not a reality-based perspective but more like (from a PR standpoint) the reasons offered to war in Iraq -- hot-air and BS.

Posted by david Sucher | October 28, 2006 7:09 AM

What they really mean by "opening the city to the water" is "opening views of the water so condo values will go up." It's more about making money for real estate developers than anything else.

Posted by Orv | October 28, 2006 3:31 PM

What LM said. And what Orv said. Any "opening up" of the waterfront isn't going to benefit us Average Joes and Josephines; it's intended to be a windfall for developers.

Posted by litlnemo | October 29, 2006 1:14 AM

William Styron, whose Holocaust novel Sophie's Choice became a film and an opera, has died, aged 81...

Posted by Ivan Branson | November 12, 2006 12:43 PM

The revision is more accurate and more apropos than the original. I disagree go to

Posted by apartments warsaw | November 15, 2006 7:58 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).