WIKIs are just SO GOOD

Sometimes when I'm looking for information off a google, I'll look at the wikipedia entry to give me some ideas on what key words to search for. Virtually every single time I do, I spot errors. Here's today's:

I'm dusting off my reloading equipment and I need some lanolin to lube cases with. The spray bottle of Dillons spray on case lube I used during the Klinton Administration broke. It was about 1/3 Lanolin and the rest rubbing alcohol. Easy enough to duplicate without having to pay shipping, but where to buy the lanolin? Well, I google lanolin and the wiki comes up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanolin

The water-repellent properties make it valuable as a lubricant grease where corrosion would otherwise be a problem, particularly on stainless steel, which becomes more vulnerable to corrosion when starved of oxygen.

OK, someone want to 'splain me how stainless steel becomes vulnerable to corrosion when there is NO oxygen? And how this film of lanolin is somehow providing oxygen to the stainless to prevent it from corroding? I'd really like to see that chemical reaction. 2 Fe + (nothing) -> Fe2 O3. Must be a creationist, huh?

I see gross errors such as this everywhere on that site. On Toyotas, lanolin, whatever. When people use WIKI as a reference in teh intr4n3t, yo, they are seriously casting themselves as fools.

Did you correct the errors?

That's how wikipedia works.. the collective wisdom of many people. If you don't help correct errors you see, you're leaving it wrong for the next guy.

That's the beauty of it... unlike most other information outlets, if you know something's wrong on Wikipedia, you can fix it.

Or you can just complain that it's wrong and leave it that way.

and this is why i just never use wiki, unless I want to pull up some VERY basic facts and don't really know where else to look

What makes you think a textbook or encyclopedia is by default any better. All sources have flaws. Newspapers commonly have a small correction section each day to correct the errors that they made the day before.

This reminded me of the "The hitchhikers guide to the galaxy" series where at one point it is explained that while the hitchhikers guide is at times wildly inaccurate its much more usefull than its closest competitors because its so much easier to use.

Yeah, but Wikipedia doesn't have big letter on the front page reminding everyone "DON'T PANIC". If it did, that would be awesome.

i dont know if this has anything to do with the error you have above but its what my very brief googling yielded.

source

Should corrosion resistant stainless steel become oxygen starved in any given area, the passivity of the steel can break down. The area of stainless steel that is freely exposed to dissolved oxygen becomes the cathode. Corrosion will now proceed in any adjacent areas where the oxygen source becomes depleted.

Cathodes are formed at areas of high oxygen concentration and anodes at areas of low concentrations. This can best be illustrated by observing a drop of saltwater placed on a polished steel surface. Within an hour or so, a ring of rust will form inside the drop (anode) while the outer edges (cathode) remain clear. The outer edges of the droplet absorb the highest concentrations of oxygen from atmospheric sources.

but the Guild version 2.0 was black and said PANIC on it, I wont go into the galactic marketing story behind the change, just read Mostly Harmless

Dr. Hess wrote: OK, someone want to 'splain me how stainless steel becomes vulnerable to corrosion when there is NO oxygen? And how this film of lanolin is somehow providing oxygen to the stainless to prevent it from corroding? I'd really like to see that chemical reaction. 2 Fe + (nothing) -> Fe2 O3. Must be a creationist, huh?

I think this explains it. Are you sure that was an error?

source

As long as the film of chrome oxide is maintained, the stainless steel behaves like gold, silver or platinum, or in other words, it has a passive behavior. Stainless steel can also develop active sites if the protective film is destroyed by scratches, nicks, stock deposits or contamination by mild steel or non-ferrous inclusions

The key to keeping the surface self healing is to keep oxygen supplied to the surface. If stock is allowed to build up on the stainless steel the area is starved for oxygen and the chrome oxide film cannot passivate itself, and in time creates a pit beneath itself.

Both my brothers are metallurgical engineers, one of them has worked for one of the big 3 automakers for 30 years. I was talking to them not long ago about stainless steel brake lines and gas lines, and they mentioned this very thing.

Regardless, applying an oily film to the stainless to keep oxygen away from it still doesn't make sense if you want oxygen on it to build up a layer. The wiki is either wrong in this instance or very poorly written.

Aluminum and Titanium do build up a layer of oxide that then will not further oxidize, so I'm familiar with the concept.

But they're not talking about building up a layer of oxidization. What they are talking about is uneven exposure to oxygen causing a galvanic (anode/cathode) reaction within the stainless steel itself, causing oxidization.

[stoopid non engineer] Doesn't stainless steel's reactivity (resistance to electrolytic corrosion) change as a result of the chromium percentage? [/stoopid non engineer]

Found a pretty neat discussion of stainless corrosion properties: http://www.azom.com/details.asp?ArticleID=1177

You could fix it without an account or anything...just add a note as to why you fixed it, because not only are anonymous edits highly suspicious, the admins are insane power-tripping tyrants.

I still say Wikipedia is good as a casual reference in a discussion, you're unlikely to find an error on any important scientific topic. They do often make errors about which Toyota came with updated window cranks or which Pokemon was mentioned in which episode, but there are an army of people watching anything important or scientific like a hawk.

Dr. Hess wrote: Regardless, applying an oily film to the stainless to keep oxygen away from it still doesn't make sense if you want oxygen on it to build up a layer. The wiki is either wrong in this instance or very poorly written.

Well yes, but only if you put it on part of the stainless steel. Put it on the whole thing and it should work. From what is noted above, it is the incomplete covering of stainless steel that is the potential issue. But I do see what you mean, they really shouldn't mention the "starved of oxygen" part. While true, it really doesn't belong, it only confuses the situation (obviously).

Dr. Hess wrote: Regardless, applying an oily film to the stainless to keep oxygen away from it still doesn't make sense if you want oxygen on it to build up a layer. The wiki is either wrong in this instance or very poorly written. Aluminum and Titanium do build up a layer of oxide that then will not further oxidize, so I'm familiar with the concept.

So why don't you do some research and fix it instead of bitching about it? If you're SO DAMN POSITIVE that the wiki is wrong or poorly written that you felt the need to go on about it here, update the frickin' wiki. That's the whole idea with a wiki, it's supported by the community. It's not Encyclopdia Brittanica, it's a bunch of folks adding tidbits here and there and is a freely available resource to anybody in the world with an internet connection. Doc Hess, you might just be wrong on this one, do yourself a favor and inform yourself and if you find some clear evidence that you are correct (or things could be worded properly) do the world a favor and update the wiki. I know it's a stretch to think you might be wrong about something, we all know doctors never make mistakes or publish incorrect data, but you know...hypothetically speaking, it may be possible.

Bryce