Just post a correction in the thread where the information is wrong, instead of trying to find a general solution to all the challenges of user generated content.

 A polite factual correction in the right thread is less likely to cause a flame war than a general sigh over people who post wrong information.

 Smile,
 Stein

It will continue. Human nature. I have seen attempts at corrections but you know where that leads. Administrators can only correct so much. The old sometimes inaccurate info remains and many have no idea on how to edit their discussion.

When I do any kind of internet search, I see all kinds of info that could have been deleted from the internet that is no longer useful or accurate but you have started another good discussion thread that I suspect will be locked eventually. Not really about model railroading.

Rich

Andy,

This is a relatively large problem; It is good that you bring it up.

May I suggest that we (not just the moderators) encourage reference information for any viewpoint ( "Just the facts", as Sgt. Friday was reported ((incorrectly)) to have repeatedly said in "Dragnet").  An example would be Joe Fugate's discussions of scenery, where he continually mentions to work from photographs (the facts), to get the colors and appearance of textures correct.

And there is the greater difficulty:  to encourage without lambasting.  That takes work, a desire to do good, and forethought; and maybe the patience to wait a day to respond.

Regarding the self-correcting mechanisms, It would be nice to have a defined scheme on this forum.  That, though, requires an MRH staffing level that I don't believe is available.    Occasionally there are the edits by the poster of an opinion, where he acknowledges newfound wisdom, and changes the post to correspond.  Again, it requires work, a desire to do good, ...

Misinformation and contrasting opinions on how things should be done have been around, I'm willing to bet, as long as model railroading itself. As you pointed out, even "experts" in the field wander off into the weeds from time to time.

The internet and forums like this one provide us with largely unfiltered information. That's a good thing in my opinion. I feel it is incumbent upon those of us viewing that information to use that gray matter between our ears to evaluate, for ourselves, the validity and/or usefulness of such information, prior to its use. 

George

If people cite their sources, it sure helps a lot to winnow out the suggestions and ideas.

A lot of us have learned things years ago -- techniques that might work fine but aren't necessarily the state of the art in the hobby now.  Just a line that says "I learned this at the Podunk Train Club in 1996" can be a help in sorting out advice. Or, if they say, "I found this in the Encyclopedia of Building Steam Locos from Scratch" you get a better idea.  Even, "this is how I do it and here's a picture" makes a big difference.

Myself, I don't always pay much attention to advice on modeling unless there is a photo or something -- too many people repeat things they think they heard but have no personal experience.

I think some of it depends on people learning how to read forums and to evaluate all the opinions and statements.

As has been said, the best solution is to respond with a correction, complete with explanation and references if practical.  If you can explain why and how someone has their facts wrong, you may educate them, and you will probably educate someone who comes along afterward.  You cannot prevent or prohibit people who are stubborn or misinformed, but you can try to prevent them from being a problem for others.

Our general preference with all things regarding the modeler postings on the website is to take the low road - just let the forum be self-correcting. The MRH staff is not a bunch of all-knowing gods ... We may not always know the right answer either (whoops, there I went and admitted we're fallible humans, too - now I've done it).

If you do know the right answer, then gently and tactfully post a correction.

Do you know the old joke about forums? It's funny because it's actually so true.

If you post a question you'll generally get an answer within an hour ... and you'll get the RIGHT answer in a few days.

Sorry guys, but I'm going to throw out a differing opinion.

This is based on the facts that I re-joined the hobby in 2008 (which makes me new - I hadn't even touched a toy/model train since 1989), and since 2008 I've built a 4x8, a chainsaw (3x16) , and a 12x10 C shaped layout (the later two hand laid). I've also been around the interwebs since the mid '90's. Perhaps the definition of a newbie should be refined?

As a newbie, I got my information from the web initially, than ordered books (I have a slew of Kalmbach books I picked up, not to mention my prototype historical references) to round things out. It didn't take more than a few months to decipher which posts were useless, and which contained useful information. Nor for that matter, which posters had information you could trust, and those you couldn't.

Good and bad, I read it all. I'd wager that I pulled about 20% useful information from what I read, but that may be an exaggeration.

I'd suggest you may be discounting the new hobbyist;  we're well into the second decade of the 21st Century, and I would presume (mistakenly?) that no single forum or publication can, or should be the single source of inspiration.  A wandering thread here may simply encourage the new researcher (hobbyist) to look elsewhere, and confirm or deny content.

My suggestion, to compliment Andy's, is to not concern the forum with the qualitative value of certain content (I feel it will correct itself, either internally or through external means), but it instead watch for what we've seen recently, the aß-holio-quotient.  In order to make a friendlier forum, members as a whole should react to the aß-holio sooner than later, and politely guide the conversation back to a useful one. No management can do this, I can point out plenty of companies who have failed and given up on this effort — it requires community effort.

So I'd say stand up. Correct when another poster is incorrect - and acknowledge when you're wrong. Stand up to the aß-holio when necessary. Say enough, without sinking to their level. If we do that, we can allow for the forum to grow along a model that will encourage new hobbyists to at least check back in - and find accurate information.

Incorrect data stays on the Internet and some grab the info and run with it. They do not check for accuracy. They may see the info in a thread or as the result of a search link and not look at the complete thread. I have seen that a quite a few times.

My loco does not run too good. Oh, put a capacitor on it. I saw that somewhere. No details.

As an example, DCC has complicated this a lot. Loco's and track wiring. The move from DC, analog, to DCC, digital control. Many have DC as a back ground. Does not always compare.

Many do not understand the electronics involved.

Rich