Re: [Wikimedia-l] Carbon footprints on Wikipedia.

2013-10-10 Thread MF-Warburg 
Can this whole discussion please be moved to enwiki or at least the enwiki
list? Working out details of an article is not really the topic of this
list.
Am 10.10.2013 12:44 schrieb "Geoff Beacon" :

> Thanks James
>
> ... but that isn't an answer about carbon footprints. Climate change may
> be controversial. I'm in the thick of that argument but carbon footprints
> are simpler and fit with other information on Wikipedia. e.g. [Global
> Warming Potential] and [Carbon Dioxide Equivalent]
>
> [break]
>
> But now I've looked at those I'm very confused the "definition" of [Carbon
> Dioxide Equivalent] does not seem to be influenced by the lifetime of
> greenhouse gasses as opposed to [Global Warming Potential]. Perhaps I have
> been using a different concept of CO2e.
>
> I've noticed that PAS2050 is referenced in [Carbon footprint]. There are a
> some serious criticisms that can be made of this. As I remember it
>
> -- ignores the radiative forcing index associated with air travel,
> -- uses the unrealistic conventional wisdom of a 100 year time scale for
> calculating carbon footprint
> -- assumes all wood product will be returned to carbon dioxide
> -- but allows cement to recapture some CO2 within their time-frame.
>
> The consequences are to go easy on beef, air travel, cement, steel and
> penalise wood products. This would be inline with government political
> objectives and some commercial interests.
>
> If I were to point these things out somewhere in the [Carbon footprint]
> piece would my entry be removed? I know of no academic work that has
> received funding to make these points so there is no peer reviewed
> literature.
>
> Could I quote PAS2050 as it isn't peer reviewed?
>
> Best wishes
>
> Geoff
>
> - Original message -
> From: James Salsman 
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Carbon footprints on Wikipedia.
> Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 17:37:49 +0800
>
> > "The inherent complexity and controversy of carbon footprints".
> > What do you mean by that?
>
> Even those who fight for inclusion of the facts about climate change
> on Wikipedia aren't very likely to follow the peer reviewed secondary
> literature when it comes to reporting the extent of changes in extreme
> weather.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Extreme_weather&action=history
> has some good examples, with more going back years.
>
> There's really no way to get Wikipedia to correctly reflect
> controversial topics unless you are willing to invest the time it
> takes to counter conflicted interest editing.
>
> Good luck!
>
>
> --
>   Geoff Beacon
>   geoffbea...@sent.com
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Carbon footprints on Wikipedia.

2013-10-10 Thread Geoff Beacon 
Thanks James

... but that isn't an answer about carbon footprints. Climate change may be 
controversial. I'm in the thick of that argument but carbon footprints are 
simpler and fit with other information on Wikipedia. e.g. [Global Warming 
Potential] and [Carbon Dioxide Equivalent]

[break] 

But now I've looked at those I'm very confused the "definition" of [Carbon 
Dioxide Equivalent] does not seem to be influenced by the lifetime of 
greenhouse gasses as opposed to [Global Warming Potential]. Perhaps I have been 
using a different concept of CO2e.

I've noticed that PAS2050 is referenced in [Carbon footprint]. There are a some 
serious criticisms that can be made of this. As I remember it 

-- ignores the radiative forcing index associated with air travel, 
-- uses the unrealistic conventional wisdom of a 100 year time scale for 
calculating carbon footprint 
-- assumes all wood product will be returned to carbon dioxide 
-- but allows cement to recapture some CO2 within their time-frame.

The consequences are to go easy on beef, air travel, cement, steel and penalise 
wood products. This would be inline with government political objectives and 
some commercial interests.

If I were to point these things out somewhere in the [Carbon footprint] piece 
would my entry be removed? I know of no academic work that has received funding 
to make these points so there is no peer reviewed literature. 

Could I quote PAS2050 as it isn't peer reviewed?

Best wishes

Geoff

- Original message -
From: James Salsman 
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Carbon footprints on Wikipedia.
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 17:37:49 +0800

> "The inherent complexity and controversy of carbon footprints".
> What do you mean by that?

Even those who fight for inclusion of the facts about climate change
on Wikipedia aren't very likely to follow the peer reviewed secondary
literature when it comes to reporting the extent of changes in extreme
weather.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Extreme_weather&action=history
has some good examples, with more going back years.

There's really no way to get Wikipedia to correctly reflect
controversial topics unless you are willing to invest the time it
takes to counter conflicted interest editing.

Good luck!


-- 
  Geoff Beacon
  geoffbea...@sent.com

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Carbon footprints on Wikipedia.

2013-10-10 Thread James Salsman 
> "The inherent complexity and controversy of carbon footprints".
> What do you mean by that?

Even those who fight for inclusion of the facts about climate change
on Wikipedia aren't very likely to follow the peer reviewed secondary
literature when it comes to reporting the extent of changes in extreme
weather.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Extreme_weather&action=history
has some good examples, with more going back years.

There's really no way to get Wikipedia to correctly reflect
controversial topics unless you are willing to invest the time it
takes to counter conflicted interest editing.

Good luck!

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Carbon footprints on Wikipedia.

2013-10-09 Thread Tim Starling 
Please either turn off digests and reply to the individual list mails,
or use the NNTP interface at gmane.org, so that your Subject and
References headers will be correct and threading will work.

On 09/10/13 20:48, Geoff Beacon wrote:
> The work of Adrian Mitchell that I used was in a report to the UK
> Department of Food and Rural Affairs. I find it now hard to find. I
> think that is because it is politically inconvenient.  The point
> about this work, as far as this discussion is concerned, is that it
> was not peer reviewed but a report to a government department. In
> my view it is clearly an important piece of work but I fear it
> would be rejected because it was not peer reviewed. See the
> moderator's comment mentioned in my BrusselsBlog piece "I can see
> only one reason for citing a non-peer reviewed article: ego-spam."
> (That wasn't actually directed at me.)

Wikipedia doesn't have moderators. It does have POV pushers, which are
a different thing. [[WP:V]] recommends, but does not require, peer
review for sources.

> I have just noticed that almost a year ago a prospective entry was
> put in the talk section of Wilipedia's [beef] article. It suggests
> a new section [Environmental impacts of beef] and has important
> information in it. This has not made its way into the main article.
> It should have despite any reservations. To only include absolutely
> polished information just gives and advantage to those with the
> resources to polish and possibly dubious motives.

It's definitely a good idea to polish your text, especially if you are
writing about a controversial topic. Note that text doesn't just "make
its way" from the talk page to the article, an ordinary editor (like
you) has to put it there.

> There is important information that should be on Wikipedia that is
> missing. I'm pleased to say that my shortened section on the
> Beddington Zero Energy Development [BedZED] hasn't yet been
> removed. It says "Embodied Carbon: Large. 67.5 tonnes CO2e for a
> 100 square metre flat." (OK. Perhaps I should have dug out the
> non-peer reviewed reference that gives this figure which was done
> by one of the project sponsors.)
> 
> If it stays perhaps I will add a section to [Beef], following the
> note in the talk section. "The carbon footprint of beef: Very
> large. Between 12 and 35kg of CO2e are produced for every 1 kg of
> beef consumed"
> 
> What do you think?

I think "very large" is too vague, it needs to be compared to
something. Also, if you are concerned that 100 year GWP underestimates
the impact of beef production, and want to use the 20 year GWP, then
the obvious solution is to quote both. NPOV policy favours expansion
over replacement.

-- Tim Starling


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

[Wikimedia-l] Carbon footprints

2013-10-09 Thread Geoff Beacon 
Peter Southwood said...

Hi Geoff,

You want it, go ahead and do it. That is how it works.

[GB: I thought my piece explained that was not how it worked for me and I won't 
be trying to contribute more without further thought.]

Cheers,
Peter Southwood

PS. What is the point you wish to make by saying you make a monthly 
contribution to WMF?

[GB: Just to point out I'm on the same side; I'm not sulking and I recognise 
the excellent service I get from Wikipedia. But I don't give very much!]

-- 
  Geoff Beacon
  geoffbea...@sent.com

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Carbon footprints on Wikipedia.

2013-10-09 Thread James Salsman 
Geoff,

The inherent complexity and controversy of carbon footprints suggests
that you should seek assistance at the Teahouse before proceeding with
further editing on the topic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse

Tim Starling wrote:

>... http://www.greenrationbook.org.uk/resources/
> cites plenty of official, reliable sources which you could
> presumably cite when you write about these topics. On
> your blog, you complain about Wikipedians getting
> annoyed when you cite yourself as a secondary source,
> which seems fair enough -- why not just cite the primary
> sources directly?

There may be some confusion between the meaning of primary and
secondary sources here.

http://www.greenrationbook.org.uk/resources/defra-study/
is a summary of several government document and peer reviewed primary sources.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19526134.500-meat-is-murder-on-the-environment.html
is a secondary source summarizing those primary sources, but it is not
peer reviewed. However, it is considered reliable because it appears
in a publication with editorial oversight of reporting and a
reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10./j.1740-0929.2007.00457.x/abstract
is a peer-reviewed primary source which includes an introductory
literature review qualifying as a peer-reviewed secondary source, but
the new findings will not be considered as reliable as the literature
review summary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_footprint
has some problems; for example the introduction is far too long and
includes a header suggesting the intro has a body section in it.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Carbon footprints on Wikipedia.

2013-10-08 Thread Peter Southwood 

Hi Geoff,
You want it, go ahead and do it. That is how it works.
Cheers,
Peter Southwood
PS. What is the point you wish to make by saying you make a monthly 
contribution to WMF?


- Original Message - 
From: "Geoff Beacon" 

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 9:49 PM
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Carbon footprints on Wikipedia.


An authoritative and easy to used resource giving of the effect or our 
everyday activities is essential if voters are to know enough to influence 
politics.


I cant find any entries on Wikipedia to match this. To some extent I blame 
Wikipedia's over emphasis on peer review and official sources. The [Carbon 
footprint] entry is probably counter-productive as it implies that the 
quoted sources are more reliable than they are. I fear some of these 
sources are incorrect, hide their proprietary information or are 
influenced by politics (i.e. government departments).


What I would like to see are lots of entries on Wikipedia like:

[the carbon footprint of beef]
[the carbon footprint of air travel]
[the carbon footprint of a new house]

& etc.

Wikipedia is the right place for such information to be presented.

See more of my criticism here: 
http://www.brusselsblog.co.uk/is-wikipedia-too-credentialist/


Geoff Beacon


P.S. I do make a modest monthly contribution to the Wikimedia foundation.


--
 Geoff Beacon
 geoffbea...@sent.com

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> 



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Carbon footprints on Wikipedia.

2013-10-08 Thread Tim Starling 
On 09/10/13 06:49, Geoff Beacon wrote:
> An authoritative and easy to used resource giving of the effect or
> our everyday activities is essential if voters are to know enough
> to influence politics.
> 
> I cant find any entries on Wikipedia to match this. To some extent
> I blame Wikipedia's over emphasis on peer review and official
> sources. The [Carbon footprint] entry is probably
> counter-productive as it implies that the quoted sources are more
> reliable than they are. I fear some of these sources are incorrect,
> hide their proprietary information or are influenced by politics
> (i.e. government departments).
> 
> What I would like to see are lots of entries on Wikipedia like:
> 
> [the carbon footprint of beef] [the carbon footprint of air
> travel] [the carbon footprint of a new house]
> 
> & etc.

I don't really understand where you are coming from with this. Your
own website  cites
plenty of official, reliable sources which you could presumably cite
when you write about these topics. On your blog, you complain about
Wikipedians getting annoyed when you cite yourself as a secondary
source, which seems fair enough -- why not just cite the primary
sources directly?

-- Tim Starling


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

[Wikimedia-l] Carbon footprints on Wikipedia.

2013-10-08 Thread Geoff Beacon 
An authoritative and easy to used resource giving of the effect or our everyday 
activities is essential if voters are to know enough to influence politics.

I cant find any entries on Wikipedia to match this. To some extent I blame 
Wikipedia's over emphasis on peer review and official sources. The [Carbon 
footprint] entry is probably counter-productive as it implies that the quoted 
sources are more reliable than they are. I fear some of these sources are 
incorrect, hide their proprietary information or are influenced by politics 
(i.e. government departments).

What I would like to see are lots of entries on Wikipedia like:

[the carbon footprint of beef]
[the carbon footprint of air travel]
[the carbon footprint of a new house]

& etc.

Wikipedia is the right place for such information to be presented.

See more of my criticism here: 
http://www.brusselsblog.co.uk/is-wikipedia-too-credentialist/

Geoff Beacon


P.S. I do make a modest monthly contribution to the Wikimedia foundation.


-- 
  Geoff Beacon
  geoffbea...@sent.com

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,