Uxbridge, the 'Venice of West London

[Hairy-Neil]

From Wikipedia... Uxbridge is colloquially known as the 'Venice of West London'[2][3] due to the profusion of canals in the town.

 

clicky

 

My mum's family have lived in the town for nearly 150 years. I was born 6 miles away lived nearby for almost half my life. I never realised just how prolific the canals are around the town, or have I missed something.....

Edited December 20, 2010 by Hairy-Neil

[matty40s]

well, as the song goes...

"a canal runs through it"....

 

I don't know who managed to get that posted there, Wickpedia is open to any postings, some never get discovered. There are more canals(or were ) in Manchester, leicester, Birmingham,E London, etc, so I do not see Uxbridge as anything other than a commuter belt of moored boats.

[PiRSqwared]

I thought that Little Venice was the Venice of W London!

[David Schweizer]

I worked part time, and we kept our boat, in Uxbridge for several years, but I have never heard it described as the "Venice of West London" However the brief history of Uxbridge on that link is both an innacurate, and badly written account, muddling Ecclesiastic and Municipal History. So it is hardly surprising that Uxbridge has been endowed with a reputation that no one else has ever heard of.

Edited December 21, 2010 by David Schweizer

[alan_fincher]

Probably from similar sources that now cause the approaches to Berkhamsted to now have huge signs proclaiming "Port of Berkhamsted", (or "Welcome to Lindy Land", as a certain poster on here put it so well a few months ago!).

[Chris Pink]

From Wikipedia... Uxbridge is colloquially known as the 'Venice of West London'[2][3] due to the profusion of canals in the town.

 

clicky

 

My mum's family have lived in the town for nearly 150 years. I was born 6 miles away lived nearby for almost half my life. I never realised just how prolific the canals are around the town, or have I missed something.....

 

Given that the idea of wikipedia is that it is the sum of human knowledge and is only as accurate as the information posted I can only suggest that you and David get in there and correct it rather than whinging on here.

[Tam & Di]

Given that the idea of wikipedia is that it is the sum of human knowledge and is only as accurate as the information posted I can only suggest that you and David get in there and correct it rather than whinging on here.

 

Sniggering, maybe, but I wouldn't say whinging. Your post assumes that wikipedia is important enough to waste time on by registering, or whatever you have to do, and then making entries. That would take away someone else's pleasurable opportunity to snigger. If I went to that trouble I'd probably find it more fun to invent a totally fictional history for Uxbridge and post that.

[Chris Pink]

Sniggering, maybe, but I wouldn't say whinging. Your post assumes that wikipedia is important enough to waste time on by registering, or whatever you have to do, and then making entries. That would take away someone else's pleasurable opportunity to snigger. If I went to that trouble I'd probably find it more fun to invent a totally fictional history for Uxbridge and post that.

 

 

In which case I am heartedly glad you can't be bothered. In general I find wikipedia to be a wonderful resource, well informed, accurate and mercifully free of the kind of malicious crap you seem to be advocating.

[Tam & Di]

In which case I am heartedly glad you can't be bothered. In general I find wikipedia to be a wonderful resource, well informed, accurate and mercifully free of the kind of malicious crap you seem to be advocating.

 

 

Pace the Uxbridge item you were stirred up about? It certainly seems to be a useful tool for allowing the lazy person to seem knowledgeable on any subject with no great effort on his part. As long as the item is correct, of course, but how would they know if it was or not?

 

Did you know that the Uxbridge entry was erroneous? If you did, why didn't YOU correct it? If you didn't then you'd find yourself spouting nonsense, but not even realising it until you spouted to someone who did know his subject. Indeed you may actually already do that - do you check information you get from Wikipedia against an independent source?

 

Worrying, isn't it?

[David Schweizer]

Given that the idea of wikipedia is that it is the sum of human knowledge and is only as accurate as the information posted I can only suggest that you and David get in there and correct it rather than whinging on here.

 

And if You had bothered to read the Wikipedia quote before spouting off about what others should do, you would have noted that the ridiculous "Venice" claim about Uxbridge was removed within two hours of my post, and hour and half before your post.

Edited December 22, 2010 by David Schweizer

[Tam & Di]

And if You had bothered to read the Wikipedia quote before spouting off about what others should do, you would have noted that the ridiculous "Venice" claim about Uxbridge was removed within two hours of my post, and hour and half before your post.

 

Ah - that explains why I didn't find it when I looked after I read Mr Pink's bumptious posting.

[Chris Pink]

And if You had bothered to read the Wikipedia quote before spouting off about what others should do, you would have noted that the ridiculous "Venice" claim about Uxbridge was removed within two hours of my post, and hour and half before your post.

 

Putting aside your desire for a fight, I would say that this simply reinforces my point, a peer reviewed source of information does work, if peers can be bothered to review it.

 

After all isn't that how scientific journals work?

 

I wouldn't attempt to edit the Uxbridge entry but have made minor corrections to articles within my area of expertise. I think you should have edited the entry before crowing on here.

 

And in answer to Tam and Di, anyone who took one source of information as authoritative without corroboration would be wise to qualify that information before 'spouting' it. A wise man would say the "OED says XYZ" or "Wikipedia says XYZ" and let the recipient make their own mind.

 

Whereas I wouldn't use it verbatim I found, for instance, the article on Herzog's Nosferatu informative and have no real concern about whether it contains to odd inaccuracy because I know someone will correct it and it's not going to change my life much if a bit of it is wrong. After all you probably spout hearsay as fact every day, most people do, they call it 'media'. Your critique of wikipedia is almost certainly based on inaccurate information rather than experience.

 

Wikipedia is a wonderful resource, a rare example of human as co-operators and should be encouraged rather than derided.

Edited December 22, 2010 by Chris Pink

[David Schweizer]

Putting aside your desire for a fight, I would say that this simply reinforces my point, a peer reviewed source of information does work, if peers can be bothered to review it. <snip

 

 

Your first post:- "I can only suggest that you and David get in there and correct it rather than whinging on here."

 

Pot and Kettle come to mind.

Edited December 22, 2010 by David Schweizer

[Hairy-Neil]

 

 

I wouldn't attempt to edit the Uxbridge entry but have made minor corrections to articles within my area of expertise. I think you should have edited the entry before crowing on here.

 

 

 

I used to contribute a little to Wikipedia, mainly as you say, by making minor corrections within my sphere of expertise. However, having experienced the deletion of my work by others with a selective memory or an axe to grind, I no longer bother.

[Josher]

I do not see Uxbridge as anything other than a commuter belt of moored boats.

 

... but with an illuminated bridge!

 

 

... these would include an illuminated arch on Colham Bridge, which crosses the Grand Union Canal and marks the transition from Yiewsley to West Drayton. Uxbridge Gazette

[David Schweizer]

I used to contribute a little to Wikipedia, mainly as you say, by making minor corrections within my sphere of expertise. However, having experienced the deletion of my work by others with a selective memory or an axe to grind, I no longer bother.

As some people on here will already know, I have undertaken quite a lot of historical research, some for myself and some for other people. Unless I can get a very reliable source of information, such as Church Records, Immigratiion Records, or Poor Rate book entries, etc. I always seek a second independant source of information before assuming that the first was accurate. Where I am unable to secure a second source, I am always careful to make this clear in anything i publish.

 

Having said that, I am the first to admit that, on occassions I have posted things on here which have subsequently been shown to be incorrect or innacurate, sometimes because my memory has failed me, and sometimes because I did not apply my rule of securing a second independant source of information before assuming that the first was accurate.

 

It is unfortunately in the nature of a forum to make an early response to an item rather than devote hours of research before posting, but that cannot be an excuse for innacurate entries on Wikipedia.

Edited December 22, 2010 by David Schweizer

[Hairy-Neil]

Given that the idea of wikipedia is that it is the sum of human knowledge and is only as accurate as the information posted I can only suggest that you and David get in there and correct it rather than whinging on here.

 

The problem with Wikipedia is anyone can contribute, and anyone can edit/delete the contributions of another, no questions asked, so it's hardly the sum of human knowledge.

 

I would say it's only as accurate as the information posted that day...

Edited December 22, 2010 by Hairy-Neil

[Barry]

The problem with Wikipedia is anyone can contribute, and anyone can edit/delete the contributions of another, no questions asked, so it's hardly the sum of human knowledge.

 

I would say it's only as accurate as the information posted that day...

 

I have been told by a tutor of mine though, that referencing Wikipedia in assignments will attract few marks BUT at the end of the articles there can be lists of referenced documents that can be a much more useful source of research material and can be cited

[Chris Pink]

Your first post:- "I can only suggest that you and David get in there and correct it rather than whinging on here."

 

Pot and Kettle come to mind.

 

So you would have preferred this to be a bit of cosy Wikipedia bashing?

 

Know what DNS really does? No, me neither, but I needed to get up to speed on it (in a conceptual way) in a hurry, where did I go?

 

Would you expect the sum of human knowledge to be perfect? or umm. human?

 

Wikipedia might not, generally be citable where there is another more authoritative source but it's certainly a first pointer to some of those sources.

 

As time goes on it will become better,that's the nature of iteration.

 

What would prefer as an alternative?

 

Answers.com? The Daily Mail?

[Speedwheel]

(or "Welcome to Lindy Land", as a certain poster on here put it so well a few months ago!).

 

[David Schweizer]

So you would have preferred this to be a bit of cosy Wikipedia bashing?

 

Know what DNS really does? No, me neither, but I needed to get up to speed on it (in a conceptual way) in a hurry, where did I go?

 

Would you expect the sum of human knowledge to be perfect? or umm. human?

 

Wikipedia might not, generally be citable where there is another more authoritative source but it's certainly a first pointer to some of those sources.

 

As time goes on it will become better,that's the nature of iteration.

 

What would prefer as an alternative?

 

Answers.com? The Daily Mail?

Hmmm, an interesting view, What I do know is that a great deal of the "information" posted on the internet within the fields that I research is is either incomplete, innnacurate or just plain wrong.

 

I guess that sounds a bit arrogant, but I spend hundreds of hours on my research, and I do try and ensure that anything I publish is as accurate as the available records permit, I do not repeat other people's poorly researched conclusions, which seems to be an increasing trend these days.

[Hairy-Neil]

 

 

Would you expect the sum of human knowledge to be perfect? or umm. human?

 

I have a policy, developed through years of hard won experience, of treating everyone as a tosser until they prove otherwise. I'm seldom disappointed....

[fender]

.

Edited December 24, 2010 by fender

[Josher]

Improving area ...

 

Regeneration of the Hayes Canal Area Moves Step Closer Uxbridge Times 10:02am Wednesday 12th January 2011

 

MP John McDonnell, has welcomed the planning permission which has been given to British Waterways to establish residential moorings for barges along the canal in Hayes town centre.Mr McDonnell said “I have been campaigning for the last ten years to regenerate the canal area in Hayes Town and have been pressing British Waterways to allow residential barges to be moored in Hayes town."This will greatly assist in opening up the canal and transforming this potentially beautiful area of the town centre. I am please that the Council has given BW planning permission but there is a long way to go in raising the funds to pay for this improvement scheme."

 

He added: "I am urging the council and Hillingdon Community Trust (HCT) to work with British Waterways and jointly fund the development of the moorings and the improvement to the canal side area. "The Council has funds set aside from recent planning developments in our area and HCT has a remit to use its funds to improve our environment. I think this scheme should be one of their top priorities.”

 

For further comment contact John on 07956292576 or 0208 569 0160

[Strads]

I know this stretch well, I used to walk into hayes to get my lunch and shopping, bewteen dawley road and trevor road there is industrial units on one side (old emi site etc) and a park - in which you can still see the outline of the old wharfs that could hold 2 boats to load/unload.

 

past the bridge for trevor road/printing house lane - the scene gets worse, many of the industrial unit users have taken to throwing rubbish over the fence and its lies as an eyesore on that side.

 

the towpath side as it nears hayes has a certain "air" due to the number of mainly east europeans that congregate to drink their "special brews" there, clearly evident by the large volume of cans on the tow path and floating, and they then use the bridge wall for a urinal.. its been unpleasant for 3 years at least..

 

from there down to the rail bridge is still littered but less un-pleasant and there has been a massive housing developement of affordable aprtments that look attractive and well thought many with balconys over looking the canal,

 

If they have the moorings along this stretch (its relatively wide) then one could see the attraction to it.

 

Unfortunately Hayes town centre also needs a serious make over, the area lacks civic pride and that shows in that the newer population clearly dosnt respect it environmentally.

 

re moorings It will be interesting to see how many they agree, whether they accomodate wide beams, provide electrics/ elsan disposal etc and price to compete against BWML who have packet boat 2 miles away at west drayton and engineers wharf going towards greenford both of which have some moorings avilable currently..

 

But take it as a positive as it couldnt be much worse..