Head and neck article in wiki editing thread

[leggwork]

John - why did you remove all of the info about the controversy around the single point of release requirement in 38.1. I think there is merit in explaining what the controversy is. It should at least be in the Isaac section.

Also, with your latest edit, I think you also missed the point on why it is a failing that SFI doesn't directly release data.


Billy knows who Racer32 is and where he works.

Just to introduce myself... I am an engineer working in the medical field. I've been doing HPDEs since 1994, been an instructor for the BMW club since 2001, got my scca, bmw cr and nasa racing licenses last year, and recently became the Chief Safety Steward for the Rocky Mountain region of BMW CCA.
I am interested in getting an H&NR for myself this year and finding viable alternatives for instructors and students.
cheers,
bruce

[jstecher]

Hey Bruce. Welcome to the board...didn't mean to come off being an ass. I am in your spot as well and just purchased a HANS after a lot of research.

With regards to removing the SFI content and single release mechanism issues. I am happy to have you edit the page and add it back in on the main page as long as it doesn't highlight a specific vendor.

I completely agree it needs to be in the Issacs page. I just didnt get around to adding it yet. You caught me in mid edit with my pants down.

I have to go put 30 minutes in running here...when I get back if you haven't added it from the historical diffs I will add it.

For all others the page is reopened for editing.

[jstecher]

K updates should be there for you Leggwork...if not up to snuff feel free to edit to your liking.

[gbaker]

You guys are doing some good work here, and in the interest of continuous improvement you may wish to know that the open format has diminished your credibility. We have received complaints from Isaac users of factual errors and a negative tone regarding our product. Personally, I don't care as, as everyone knows, anyone can say anything on a Wiki so its value is dubious--especially when company reps are posting outside of discussion areas. I mean, really...

Consequently, locking down nearly everything is an improvement.

[Rob.wisniewski]

The decision is a function of 2 things:

First and foremost, the open format is the reason everything exists in the first place. That's kind of the whole point of the experiment. A research article and a wiki entry have two completely separate purposes and functions I think. If we want to distill the information we've been able to put together into an article I think it would be extremely interesting, and then we would have the ability to put it up for community review and fact checking. I don't know that any article anywhere else has been quite so comprehensive, and that's not because of our expertise in the matter at all, but only BECAUSE of the open format itself. It's a chicken/egg problem.

Second, it's a matter of integrity really. We know that this particular topic is both high traffic and controversial. We're going to keep a close eye on all edits on this page specifically. If an edit seems to be blatantly disruptive to the spirit of the entry then we'll revert it and make sure that the author is aware of the problem. Everyone is able to see all edits, changes, and previous versions of the entry, so there's nothing to hide behind. I don't have a problem publicizing the fact that a particular user is abusing the ability to edit and subsequently making the article less useful.

The open format is simultaneously wiki's greatest strength and greatest weakness, but it has proven to be effective and reliable in alot of areas. I don't believe this will be an exception given correct management. Especially with the new format management and monitoring of these changes should be reasonable.

[jstecher]

Originally Posted by gbaker

You guys are doing some good work here, and in the interest of continuous improvement you may wish to know that the open format has diminished your credibility. We have received complaints from Isaac users of factual errors and a negative tone regarding our product. Personally, I don't care as, as everyone knows, anyone can say anything on a Wiki so its value is dubious--especially when company reps are posting outside of discussion areas. I mean, really...

Consequently, locking down nearly everything is an improvement.

I would be curious as to what the factual errors and negative tone is regarding your product in the current form of the document. Of course any perpetual document is always going to have its periods of incorrect information but I think that the beauty of having the open page is that you yourself can correct the information or any negative tone. If that page was a static page then all your company or any other one has as an option is discredit the report.

I am happy to take suggestions on how to make the page more accurate and maintain its accuracy but I personally don't believe that the creditability of a community editable and moderated page is any less accurate than a locked down page. The best would be a completely independent test by a third party with all the devices. Hmm wonder if thats possible.

[gbaker]

We are in general agreement. The chicken/egg and open/closed aspects make none of this easy. I don't envy your jobs and applaud your efforts, which are 90% constructive.

The problem occurs when the presentation allows the reader to lose the distinction between opinion and fact. Allowing someone to post outside of the discussion area an opinion presented as fact is a terrible disservice--especially if someone ends up getting hurt.

Originally Posted by jstecher

I would be curious as to what the factual errors and negative tone is regarding your product in the current form of the document.

"These results look very good when compared with the tests performed on other devices, but they are Isaac's numbers and look nothing like the offical [sic] SFI data that other manufacturer's publish or are detailed in SAE research papers."

No, they are not Isaac's numbers. These are tests designed by industry experts and conducted by independent laboratories. The SFI test is the same, but another test protocol which will, necessarily, generate different results.

and

"The way the FIA, NASCAR and a whole bunch of other serious racing safety guys act seems to suggest that this argument may not have merit. Make your own determination based on the type of car that you drive."

No comment necessary re tone. Re logic, if all those serious racing safety guys want to stick with disproved philosophies left over from the last millennium, that's their choice.

I am happy to take suggestions on how to make the page more accurate and maintain its accuracy but I personally don't believe that the creditability of a community editable and moderated page is any less accurate than a locked down page.

Agreed, it still goes to the issue of opinion. Documented test performance should be totally isolated from opinion.

The best would be a completely independent test by a third party with all the devices. Hmm wonder if thats possible.

But we are already there. None of the test protocols used for these products have been either designed or conducted by any manufacturer. They are completely independent, third party. For some reason, many people fail to understand that.

Life is too short to fix stuff like this. We have other things to do.

[jstecher]

Thanks for the comments Greg. I will fix the opinion areas that I missed in the wiki...it took me a good deal of time to separate out the page with opinion versus fact so I admit it is not perfect but am working on it.

I know that the devices are tested third party but they are not dont head to head in a public forum which is what I would like to see ala a shoot out from a car magazine. Each vendor brings their device and the tests are all done at a certain date and time on a specific sled, etc all on the same day. Correct me if I am wrong but the current third party tests are all done on just the device being certified.

I am also going to work to hold down the amount of baseless opinion by moderating the H&HR wiki pages and if opinions do pop up I will move them to the forum for discussion.

[billy]

I'd prefer the wiki page to be written up, reviewed by greg, leatt, racer32 and trevor from lft and then frozen.

That information has value because it's reviewed by experts. If we also have free format pages for community edit then cool. We can link to those from the main 'reviewed' page.

I agree with Greg, there is too much fluff in this area and a good frozen article/wiki page written and reviewed by people that are experts has value.

As it stands, with non experts changing it etc, it's no better than a forum which is exactly why we made a wiki in the first place, to consolidate the info in to a single page. But, if the content has no value because the authors have no expertise, I don't see a point.

I'd not saying lock down the whole site, I'm just saying it's another type of content in the wiki, industry reviewed articles which are not editable. I am more interested in seeing what greg, trevor or racer32 has to say on this topic than anybody else for obvious reasons. If you buy a magazine, whos article are you going to read? gregs or mine?

[JimLill]

HNR is one of the more if not most controversial subjects in racing. You should look at the SCCA sites.

I'd clean up what you have, add links to forum threads, and lock the wiki. Let the mods move verified info into the Wiki.

IMO....