Apologies to Ken for any offence caused, and thanks for his attempts to turn my enthusiasm into something of worth!
By my earlier email, I was just trying to get the issue in the open, so people understand how the wikification process has been carried out. I felt it was worthwhile doing this, especially by way of explanation of some apparently 'odd' decisions I've made along the way. I am pretty new to geoeng and to wiki. I'm sure that most of the stuff that's up there could do with improvement. I'm not protective of my work, and I really hope people can pitch in and tidy it up where I lack the knowledge/skills/time to do this. It's a pleasure to sign in and sigh with relief that an article's been improved in my sleep. I've really only been able to create a basic framework, which just says a little about the subject in a series of semi-organised and wiki-compliant articles. It's now up to the community to improve these to make it a good showcase for the work that so many professionals have done over a long period of time. I'm still happy to help with the 'boring' work of wikifying any content I get sent, but I'm pretty much done with the work I set out to do. If anyone would like to give me a new project, I'd be happy to do it. Anyway, thanks to everyone for: 1) creating the content (especially all the stuff on 'arctic geoengineering' and 'hydraulic geoengineering', which i wrote virtually none of) 2) putting up with the workload and the flurry of messages 3) patiently tolerating the frustration of having their cherished work publicly fiddled with by a layman Despite all the minor tiffs, I think it's been worth it. A 2009/1/1 Ken Caldeira <[email protected]>: > > Please note that I sent my comments to Andrew Lockley individually and did > not broadcast my sentiments to the entire group. > > > On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 7:14 PM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> My replies to Ken's comments on my approach to wiki development. >> Ken in lowercase >> ME (ANDREW LOCKLEY) IN UPPERCASE >> >> >> > I do not think you are doing a service to the community by introducing a >> > large number of articles to Wikipedia, >> THERE HAS TO BE A LARGE NUMBER, BECAUSE WIKI HAS MAX. 30KB RECOMMENDED >> SIZES FOR ARTICLES >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_length#How_to_find_long_articles >> >> without any quality control, >> EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE IS SUBMITTED TO THE COMMUNITY FOR QUALITY >> CONTROL. I AM AN EDUCATED LAY PERSON, AND I RELY ON FIELD EXPERTS >> FOR FEEDBACK AND EXTRA CONTENT. >> >> with all kinds of invented terms >> WHEN I HAVE BEEN IN DOUBT, I HAVE ALWAYS ASKED FIRST >> IF I'VE USED INCORRECT TERMS, FEEL FREE TO CORRECT THEM, OR SUGGEST >> THE ONES I SHOULD USE. >> >> and wacky ideas listed alongside possibly sensible ideas. >> I'M NOT QUALIFIED TO DECIDE WHAT IS AND ISN'T SENSIBLE. IT SEEMS FROM >> THE DEBATES ON GEOENG GROUP THAT THERE ISN'T A GENERAL AGREEMENT ON >> WHAT IS AND ISN'T SENSIBLE. >> >> For example, there is a page: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage >> Might it not be more useful to expand the paragraph on air capture there >> I HAVE PUT A MERGE TAG ONTO THE PAGE, BUT YOU COULD HAVE DONE THAT >> GUIDELINES ON MERGE TAGS HERE >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Merging_and_moving_pages >> >> > than to invent terms out of whole cloth ("Carbon Dioxide Scrubbing") >> I BELIEVE I SUBMITTED THAT TERM TO THE GROUP FOR CHECKING. I HAD 2 >> POSITIVE RESPONSES, FROM MEMORY >> YOU CAN CHANGE THE NAME OF A PAGE USING THE 'MOVE' TAB. I DON'T MIND >> IF YOU CAN THINK OF A BETTER NAME FOR ANY PAGE OR TERM. >> >> and proliferate Wikipedia articles? >> SEE ABOVE COMMENTS RE:LENGTH >30KB >> >> (Is language like "Fake Plastic Trees" really useful here? Does the >> use of such terms promote understanding?) >> THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO EXISTING CITATIONS TO THE USE OF THE TERM 'FAKE >> PLASTIC TREES' IN PRIOR USE IN SEPARATE MEDIA. BY CONTRAST, THE >> ALTERNATIVE TERM 'ARTIFICIAL TREES' IS AMBIGUOUS AND NOT MEMORABLE. >> AGAIN, FEEL FREE TO CHANGE IT IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT. >> REMEMBER THAT 'BLACK HOLE' WAS A "SILLY JOKE NAME" THAT IS NOW >> UNIVERSALLY USED (ANYONE REMEMBER THE "OFFICIAL NAME"- >> 'GRAVITATIONALLY COMPLETELY COLLAPSED BODIES'?) >> > >> > Best, >> > >> > Ken >> > >> > >> > >> > ___________________________________________________ >> > Ken Caldeira >> > >> > Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology >> > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA >> > >> > [email protected]; [email protected] >> > http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab >> > +1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968 >> > >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 12:28 PM, Andrew Lockley >> > <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_scrubbing >> >> >> >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> >> From: Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> >> >> Date: 2008/12/31 >> >> Subject: new wiki page - NAMES PLEASE >> >> To: geoengineering <[email protected]> >> >> >> >> >> >> I am planning a new wiki on co2 scrubbing >> >> >> >> potential names include: >> >> co2 scrubbing >> >> atmospheric co2 removal >> >> chemical co2 scrubbing >> >> artificial trees >> >> fake plastic trees >> >> >> >> >> >> please pick one or suggest others >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
