Wikipedia hint that TG goes on with May and Hammond?

Cavi Mike

Active Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
260
Location
NY
Car(s)
1986 325e, 1987 Corolla, 2000 328Ci
The text is the result of the standard Wikipedia revision process not an insider subtly leaking information.
 
Anyone can edit Wikipedia anonymously.
 
Anyone can edit Wikipedia anonymously.

While that technically may be true but in reality it's not that easy to make a change on wikipedia because even the smallest detail needs to be justified in a pretty big way, you can't just write any old crap you like without something to back it up.
 
While that technically may be true but in reality it's not that easy to make a change on wikipedia because even the smallest detail needs to be justified in a pretty big way, you can't just write any old crap you like without something to back it up.

But you can easily slip some tidbits in under the radar, like what is happening here.
 
But you can easily slip some tidbits in under the radar, like what is happening here.

Nothing slipped under the radar here, if you at the history of the edits of the site it's simply the most agreed upon language which evolved I believe from something along the lines of
He was the co-presenter of the motoring programme Top Gear, alongside Richard Hammond and Jeremy Clarkson.

You can even see the discussion and the reasoning behind the changes, I didn't read it in detail but effectively it was decided that nothing was officially announced so James May is still until we hear otherwise, with Top Gear.
 
Last edited:
Nothing slipped under the radar here, if you at the history of the edits of the site it's simply the most agreed upon language which evolved I believe from something along the lines of


You can even see the discussion and the reasoning behind the changes, I didn't read it in detail but effectively it was decided that nothing was officially announced so James May is still until we hear otherwise, with Top Gear.

...


The point is that people who either have no clue or want to fabricate half truths can easily create something on wiki that will be accepted, while not being true or at the very least deceptive.

Atm it reads "is" while mentioning JC in past tense, as such it's giving false information be it on purpose or not.
 
Last edited:
...


The point is that people who either have no clue or want to fabricate half truths can easily create something on wiki that will be accepted, while not being true or at the very least deceptive.

Atm it reads "is" while mentioning JC in past tense, as such it's giving false information be it on purpose or not.

I don't think you entirely comprehend how properly anal the people who volunteer their time to that site are, the fact is it's not false information Jeremy was a presenter on Top Gear alongside Hammond and May in the past tense we know this because his contract was the only one which was publicly confirmed to not be extended and the other 2 could be in negotiations for all we know so it's not false information.
This isn't the daily mail we're talking about here Wikipedia actually cares about whether or not information is false.
 
I don't think you entirely comprehend how properly anal the people who volunteer their time to that site are, the fact is it's not false information Jeremy was a presenter on Top Gear alongside Hammond and May in the past tense we know this because his contract was the only one which was publicly confirmed to not be extended and the other 2 could be in negotiations for all we know so it's not false information.
This isn't the daily mail we're talking about here Wikipedia actually cares about whether or not information is false.

Nice soapboxing, but sadly for you the simple reality is that it states "is" in regards to may and past tense for Jezza which thus means, according to that wiki, that May still is a current presenter.

However, we can be 99.999999% sure that no one who is actually in the KNOW of those talks/agreements will ever take the time to edit some moronic page on a wiki, just to out it to the world. And that thus means we can be 99.999999% sure that the one who made that edit is either clueless, terrible at English or has an agenda for stating non-facts.

So yes, it slipped in under the radar, even though perhaps it may end up being true.
 
Nice soapboxing, but sadly for you the simple reality is that it states "is" in regards to may and past tense for Jezza which thus means, according to that wiki, that May still is a current presenter.

However, we can be 99.999999% sure that no one who is actually in the KNOW of those talks/agreements will ever take the time to edit some moronic page on a wiki, just to out it to the world. And that thus means we can be 99.999999% sure that the one who made that edit is either clueless, terrible at English or has an agenda for stating non-facts.

So yes, it slipped in under the radar, even though perhaps it may end up being true.

Go on then change it if you think it's so inaccurate, it is the currently most accurate information on James May's current job status and the idea that there is some sort of agenda behind it is far more ridiculous if not just as ridiculous as it being some insider I think you are just being difficult to put it as nicely as possible.
 
:dancinglock:
 
Meanwhile at Hammond's end:

 
Richard Hammond should make a new Youtube channel called "The Hamster swears".
Would be epic!
 
Top