[HN Gopher] Mt Rainier Elevation Survey
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Mt Rainier Elevation Survey
        
       Author : nickswalker
       Score  : 40 points
       Date   : 2024-10-16 18:24 UTC (4 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.countryhighpoints.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.countryhighpoints.com)
        
       | satiric wrote:
       | "Editors of the [Wikipedia] page appear to be non-experts in the
       | field and biased against me personally for unknown reasons... It
       | is unfortunate that Wikipedia cannot be trusted as a reliable
       | source of information."
       | 
       | No, _you_ cannot be trusted over the USGS (US Geological Survey).
       | This is an important thing to understand when editing Wikipedia.
       | It 's not enough to be an expert in the field (other editors have
       | no idea what your experience is). Peer-reviewed, published data
       | from an official source is always going to be more trusted than
       | data in a blog post.
        
         | snowwrestler wrote:
         | Actually in this case he can be trusted more than the USGS, as
         | he took a more recent measurement.
         | 
         | This is a known shortcoming of Wikipedia's model, which is
         | optimized to manage conflicts between editors rather than
         | optimized for accuracy.
        
         | RandallBrown wrote:
         | The data in this blog post is peer reviewed by an expert.
        
         | Dig1t wrote:
         | Isn't that just an appeal to authority?
        
           | quasse wrote:
           | Yes, and we can (somewhat humorously) reference Wikipedia's
           | own page on the "argument from authority" page to dig in to
           | the fallacy. [1]
           | 
           | Quoting Wikipedia: "scientific knowledge is best established
           | by evidence and experiment rather than argued through
           | authority". The author of this post has collected evidence,
           | presented it, and had it reviewed by a domain expert (Larry
           | Signani is the person who first surveyed Rainier using GPS in
           | 1998).
           | 
           | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority#Use
           | _in...
        
         | jancsika wrote:
         | Okay, so the author linked to the Seattle Times for a published
         | citation of their measurement. And indeed the author's
         | measurements are confirmed by Signani in that very same
         | article:
         | 
         | https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/climate-lab/mount-...
         | 
         | That looks to me like a legitimate Wikipedia source. Plus it's
         | recent and doesn't seem to be disputed by any other recent
         | article.
         | 
         | Is there a reason I'm missing on why this person isn't being
         | allowed to update the elevation for Mt Rainier on Wikipedia?
        
       | adamredwoods wrote:
       | >> After 24 hours I processed the measurements using OPUS, then
       | converted to NGVD29 vertical datum using NCAT [10]. I found
       | Columbia Crest is 14,389.2 ft +/-0.1ft and the SW Rim is 14,399.6
       | ft +/-0.1ft. This means Columbia Crest has melted down 21.8ft
       | since the 1998 LSAW measurement, and the SW Rim is now the true
       | highpoint of Rainier at 14,399.6ft. These values are consistent
       | with my sight level measurements, which were that the SW Rim is
       | 11.0ft +/-1.3ft taller than Columbia Crest. The SW Rim
       | measurements from 2024 are similar to but slightly shorter than
       | the previous dGPS and Lidar measurements of that point.
       | 
       | >> The methodology and measurements have been peer reviewed and
       | processed by leading Rainier surveyors, including Larry Signani,
       | involved in the previous three Rainier surveys from 1988, 1998,
       | and 2010.
        
       | RaftPeople wrote:
       | Interesting factoid:
       | 
       | One of the measurements in the early (or early-mid?) 1900's came
       | out as an even hundred, something like 14,400, but they didn't
       | think people would believe that was the actual measurement so
       | they added or subtracted a few feet so it looked better.
       | 
       | Source: World Book encyclopedias printed sometime in the early
       | 70's
        
       | jmull wrote:
       | > Editors of the page appear to be non-experts in the field and
       | biased against me personally for unknown reasons.
       | 
       | They are likely non-experts in measuring mountains, but may be
       | experts in updating wikipedia.
       | 
       | While it's always possible they hold some unreasonable grudge,
       | it's also possible this new data hasn't yet met the criteria
       | wikipedia has.
       | 
       | This data is so new, you might just want to wait a while
       | (especially before throwing personal accusations). Rainier will
       | still be there.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-10-16 23:01 UTC)