Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Delta Airlines Wikipedia Entry Accuracy  
User currently offlineAfrikaskyes From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 141 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 5864 times:

Wikipedia lists the following airlines as wholly-owned subsidiaries:

Comair
Compass Airlines
Delta Shuttle
Delta AirElite
Mesaba Airlines
Northwest Airlines

Fleet size 452 + 49 orders (1144 w/ NW and wholly-owned subsidiaries)

Is this information accurate? I didn't think NW was wholly-owned subsidiary.

30 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineNycbjr From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 447 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 5840 times:

Right now during the transition to a single operating cert they are exactly that a whole owned subsidiary.

from dl website

Quote:
With the completion of the merger, Northwest Airlines is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Delta. Customers should continue to check-in and do business directly with the airline operating their flight just as they did before the merger. Delta will continue operation of the airlines’ separate Web sites, www.delta.com and www.nwa.com, as well as the two airlines’ reservations systems and loyalty programs.



[Edited 2008-12-12 08:34:05]

[Edited 2008-12-12 08:34:48]

User currently offlineMayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10428 posts, RR: 14
Reply 2, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 5832 times:

It is until the merger is complete after the single operating certificate. Until then, it is indeed a wholly owned subsidiary. Not many people know this but WA was a wholly owned subsidiary of DL from 12/01/86 until the the merger went into effect on 4/01/87.


"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineSkyTeamTriStar From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 392 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 5789 times:

Delta Airlines Wikipedia Entry Accuracy

Air Lines is accurate --- not Airlines


User currently offlinePilotboi From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 2366 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 5617 times:



Quoting Afrikaskyes (Thread starter):
Delta Airlines Wikipedia Entry Accuracy

If you wanna talk about accuracy, I'd suggest getting the name of the airline right first. Like SkyTeamTriStar said, it's Delta Air Lines, not Delta Airlines.

Quoting Afrikaskyes (Thread starter):
Wikipedia lists the following airlines as wholly-owned subsidiaries:

Comair
Compass Airlines
Delta Shuttle
Delta AirElite
Mesaba Airlines
Northwest Airlines

Delta Shuttle is NOT a subsidiary - in fact it's not even a company. It's just the name of a specific operation.

Quoting Afrikaskyes (Thread starter):
Fleet size 452 + 49 orders (1144 w/ NW and wholly-owned subsidiaries)

That is roughly accurate. The true numbers change almost daily. But at the moment this is the rough breakdown:

Delta - ABOUT 450 +16 orders
Northwest - ABOUT 320 +25 orders
Comair, Mesaba, Compass - ABOUT 270 +12 orders
-------------------------------------------------------
Total - ABOUT 1040 +53 orders

Like I said, it's changing almost daily with orders coming in, retirements going out, and plenty of other things shifting around.


User currently offlineJamotcx From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 1037 posts, RR: 24
Reply 5, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 5551 times:



Quoting Mayor (Reply 2):
It is until the merger is complete after the single operating certificate. Until then, it is indeed a wholly owned subsidiary. Not many people know this but WA was a wholly owned subsidiary of DL from 12/01/86 until the the merger went into effect on 4/01/87.

KLM Cityhopper?


User currently offlineBlueFlyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 4002 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 5527 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Jamotcx (Reply 5):
KLM Cityhopper?

Western Airlines, bought by Delta in 198something. IATA code was WA.



I've got $h*t to do
User currently offlineDeltaL1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9425 posts, RR: 14
Reply 7, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 5210 times:



Quoting Pilotboi (Reply 4):
Delta - ABOUT 450 +16 orders

they are also counting the 738s that are not coming.



yep.
User currently offlineFlyboy7974 From United States of America, joined Jan 2003, 1540 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 5127 times:

Wikipedia isn't accurate 100% of the time. Think it was the PSA page that I was on and noticed errors that they ended service with the USAir merger and were flying like 18 B737 or something of that sort. Sent in a request to amend and never heard back. I'll check and see if fixxed cuz that was a few months ago

User currently offlineUSPIT10L From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 3295 posts, RR: 7
Reply 9, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 5127 times:



Quoting BlueFlyer (Reply 6):
bought by Delta in 198something

1986.



It's a Great Day for Hockey!
User currently offlinePilotboi From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 2366 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4958 times:



Quoting Flyboy7974 (Reply 8):
Wikipedia isn't accurate 100% of the time. Think it was the PSA page that I was on and noticed errors that they ended service with the USAir merger and were flying like 18 B737 or something of that sort. Sent in a request to amend and never heard back. I'll check and see if fixxed cuz that was a few months ago

False. 100% of the time? Come on, it's not a fake encyclopedia. I wish ignorant people would learn how it all works before judging it. What do you mean you "sent in a request"? On Wikipedia if you have an account you can go in and edit it immediately. That's the whole point. Make your contributions so that future readers know the truth. So stop complaining that it's inaccurate and do something about it.


User currently offlineHuaiwei From Singapore, joined Oct 2008, 1114 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4942 times:

Quoting Pilotboi (Reply 10):
On Wikipedia if you have an account you can go in and edit it immediately

Actually, you do not even need an account to edit. Anyone with an internet connection and access to Wikipedia can edit almost anything in there without even signing on.

Wikipedia never claims to be 100% accurate....it is always a work-in-progress and is as accurate as its readers and editors want it to be.

[Edited 2008-12-12 22:51:38]


It's huaiwei...not huawei. I have nothing to do with the PRC! :)
User currently offlinePilotboi From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 2366 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4921 times:



Quoting Huaiwei (Reply 11):
Actually, you do not even need an account to edit. Anyone with an internet connection and access to Wikipedia can edit almost anything in there without even signing on.

Your right - doh me.

Quoting Huaiwei (Reply 11):
Wikipedia never claims to be 100% accurate....it is always a work-in-progress and is as accurate as its readers and editors want it to be.

Exactly.


User currently offlineDeltadude From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 134 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 4156 times:

The nice thing about Wikipedia is you can correct inaccuracies. If you see something wrong, fix it.

User currently offlineMayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10428 posts, RR: 14
Reply 14, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 4140 times:



Quoting Deltadude (Reply 13):
The nice thing about Wikipedia is you can correct inaccuracies. If you see something wrong, fix it.

It's only as good as the info that's put into it. It's a perfect example of Garbage In/Garbage Out.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently onlineDeltaLVr From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 27 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 4122 times:

I noticed that if you look at Delta's fleet, wikipedia has already begin putting up the 747's. For now, Delta has 1 747! Exciting.

User currently offlinePilotboi From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 2366 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3976 times:



Quoting DeltaLVr (Reply 15):
I noticed that if you look at Delta's fleet, wikipedia has already begin putting up the 747's. For now, Delta has 1 747! Exciting.

Yeah that's been fixed, as it's not really in Delta's fleet. All of us here know that it's still operated by Northwest.


User currently offlineHuaiwei From Singapore, joined Oct 2008, 1114 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3657 times:



Quoting Mayor (Reply 14):

It's only as good as the info that's put into it. It's a perfect example of Garbage In/Garbage Out.

Ditto to all publications on this planet, so why single out Wikipedia in this regard?



It's huaiwei...not huawei. I have nothing to do with the PRC! :)
User currently offlineMayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10428 posts, RR: 14
Reply 18, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3593 times:



Quoting Huaiwei (Reply 17):
Ditto to all publications on this planet, so why single out Wikipedia in this regard?

I think it's because their accuracy has been questioned in the past. Also, most other "publications" have some one to proofread or edit them before being finalized. Wikipedia does not.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineHuaiwei From Singapore, joined Oct 2008, 1114 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3580 times:

Quoting Mayor (Reply 18):
I think it's because their accuracy has been questioned in the past.

Wikipedia currently has 2,658,158 articles in English alone. I would be surprised it there are no problems with accuracy at all.

Quoting Mayor (Reply 18):
Also, most other "publications" have some one to proofread or edit them before being finalized. Wikipedia does not.

Says who? You, and anyone else, can be the one proofreading and editing wikipedia articles...right now if you wish. Provided you follow Wikipedia's editing guidelines of course.

[Edited 2008-12-13 21:03:14]


It's huaiwei...not huawei. I have nothing to do with the PRC! :)
User currently offlineMayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10428 posts, RR: 14
Reply 20, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3572 times:



Quoting Huaiwei (Reply 19):
Says who? You, and anyone else, can be the one proofreading and editing wikipedia articles...right now if you wish. Provided you follow Wikipedia's editing guidelines of course.

Well, Wikipedia certainly isn't going to edit or proofread the info. They expect the people submitting the info to do that. You may have time enough to do that, but I don't. I'm not slamming the folks at Wikipedia. If it's anyone's fault for some of their inaccurasies, it should be the submitters.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineRGElectra80 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 361 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3538 times:



Quoting Huaiwei (Reply 19):

It's not the proofreading part that concerns some of us it's the fact-checking that's concerning. Because of its ease of editing, anyone who THINKS some information is correct can go in there and change it with little to none accountability for their action.

Although this happens with "credible" media sources more than we'd like to think, think of how ridiculous a publication that's read by millions daily would look if they wrote an article based on something the writer THOUGHT was fact.

On Wikipedia we're all fact-checkers in a way but since it's such a huge, uncontrolled, anonymous environment, all these would-be fact-checkers turn the thing into a garbage in, garbage out environment. So you use it responsibly and edit something that you're knowledgeable in and know it to be a fact but the next guy might think, "No, what a jerk, that's not right," and he goes and changes it. What accountability is this person held to? ZERO.

Accountability is the difference between Wikis and more traditional sources of information. It's easy to edit a Wiki where there is virtually zero consequence for providing misleading information.



Feel free to check out my Flight Diary: flightdiary.net/alenart
User currently offlineCPH-R From Denmark, joined May 2001, 6000 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3504 times:



Quoting RGElectra80 (Reply 21):
Accountability is the difference between Wikis and more traditional sources of information. It's easy to edit a Wiki where there is virtually zero consequence for providing misleading information.

Apart from being banned after repeatedly adding false/misleading information.

Besides, traditional media do occasionally slip up on their fact checking as well, Dan Rather & Stephen Glass can attest to that  Wink


User currently offlinePilotboi From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 2366 posts, RR: 9
Reply 23, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3419 times:



Quoting Mayor (Reply 20):
Well, Wikipedia certainly isn't going to edit or proofread the info. They expect the people submitting the info to do that. You may have time enough to do that, but I don't. I'm not slamming the folks at Wikipedia. If it's anyone's fault for some of their inaccurasies, it should be the submitters.

I would have to disagree with your statement there. You see when you talk about this entity, "Wikipedia", that doesn't just mean the people that set it up and maintain it's servers. It also includes every single user on the site that make it possible. That means me, you if you'd like to, all millions of other 'regular' people from all around the world. The people editing articles ARE Wikipedia. Without us Wikipedia wouldn't work.

Quoting RGElectra80 (Reply 21):
It's not the proofreading part that concerns some of us it's the fact-checking that's concerning. Because of its ease of editing, anyone who THINKS some information is correct can go in there and change it with little to none accountability for their action.

Although this happens with "credible" media sources more than we'd like to think, think of how ridiculous a publication that's read by millions daily would look if they wrote an article based on something the writer THOUGHT was fact.

On Wikipedia we're all fact-checkers in a way but since it's such a huge, uncontrolled, anonymous environment, all these would-be fact-checkers turn the thing into a garbage in, garbage out environment. So you use it responsibly and edit something that you're knowledgeable in and know it to be a fact but the next guy might think, "No, what a jerk, that's not right," and he goes and changes it. What accountability is this person held to? ZERO.

Accountability is the difference between Wikis and more traditional sources of information. It's easy to edit a Wiki where there is virtually zero consequence for providing misleading information.

I think everyone here who has negative views on Wikipedia need to take a crash course on it. When people add/change/remove information, there are other people who are watching these changes and make sure a source is listed to back what they have done. If no source is listed, or none can be found, it is typically marked with a 'source needed' tag. We've come a long away from letting people just write what they think they know. Now-a-days it's all about what you can prove from verified sources.

And do you have any idea what goes on in the background? Probably not - and you can view that if you want. Go to any article's page and click on the Talk tab at the top. Or go to a user page and click on Talk at the top. You'll find tons of discussion about the articles themselves - about things that are added, changed, the way the article looks, etc. Then there are tons and tons of groups that monitor certain types of articles and talk about standardization and stuff like that. There must be more content that is non-article on Wikipedia then there is articles, just to make it all possible. People dedicate their time to make Wikipedia better every day, and to keep it going that way. Next time you choose Wikipedia to look up something (cause I know you still do even though you think it's wrong) take a second to remember all the work that goes into providing you that information.

Signed, Wikipedia Activist


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25338 posts, RR: 22
Reply 24, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3239 times:



Quoting Pilotboi (Reply 23):
Now-a-days it's all about what you can prove from verified sources.

However, just because something has appeared in another source (book, magazine, newspaper etc.), it doesn't mean that the other source is correct.

Personally I only use Wikipedia as a last resort when I can't find the information elsewhere. The problem is that the quality of the articles varies so much. Sometimes they are very good and other times they are full or errors. That makes it difficult to know what is good and what is bad.

The thing I am also curious about, considering how extensive some Wikipedia articles are, is just who has the time to do all that work voluntarily. Some articles must take many weeks of research and have 100 or more sources and related links.


25 Pilotboi : So basically you're saying Wikipedia is just as good or as bad as any other source. But I think it's better because it's a collaboration of multiple
26 Viscount724 : Depending on the subject, some other sources have more credibility regardless of how accurate Wikipedia may (or may not) be. For example, if I'm inte
27 Siromega : Generally its the first place I go - just to check their sources and see what I can use. I never cite it, but I'll site the same sources the WP artic
28 Spacecadet : However, that kind of information would likely be sourced from Boeing's web site on Wikipedia. The thing people need to remember about Wikipedia is t
29 Pilotboi : I would do the same. Most of the time, those types of article's history sections are based on the company's website. And that's how it should be done
30 Flyboy7974 : pardon me, not properly stated, "isn't accurate all the time" is what I should have stated. I started to send in an edit, but certain warnings or som
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Delta Airlines Rant posted Sun Aug 17 2008 12:58:53 by Hywel
Delta Airlines 17 BOM - JFK Delayed By 9 Hours posted Sun May 25 2008 21:37:03 by Ojas
Delta Airlines: TLV – Atlanta Route Received Best posted Tue Jan 22 2008 11:17:57 by JFK787NYC
Delta Airlines Copies Delta Faucet Typeface? posted Tue May 1 2007 19:35:26 by Wjcandee
Delta Airlines Lockheed L100 Hercules posted Sat Dec 16 2006 23:46:45 by Columba
Delta Airlines Employee Listing posted Sat Dec 2 2006 18:48:49 by LHUSA
Delta Airlines At PWM posted Thu Sep 14 2006 03:39:13 by AC330
Delta Airlines Has A Myspace? posted Fri Aug 11 2006 22:54:35 by Cadet57
Delta Airlines First Flight To Kiev posted Tue Jun 6 2006 14:07:29 by Sushka
New Delta Airlines Service To EDI posted Thu May 18 2006 14:37:03 by Baexecutive
Delta Airlines Copies Delta Faucet Typeface? posted Tue May 1 2007 19:35:26 by Wjcandee
Delta Airlines Lockheed L100 Hercules posted Sat Dec 16 2006 23:46:45 by Columba
Delta Airlines Employee Listing posted Sat Dec 2 2006 18:48:49 by LHUSA
Delta Airlines At PWM posted Thu Sep 14 2006 03:39:13 by AC330
Delta Airlines Has A Myspace? posted Fri Aug 11 2006 22:54:35 by Cadet57
Delta Airlines First Flight To Kiev posted Tue Jun 6 2006 14:07:29 by Sushka
New Delta Airlines Service To EDI posted Thu May 18 2006 14:37:03 by Baexecutive