Good morning :-)
I've just been called by the producer for ABC702 morning show (presenter is
Linda Mottram) and asked to talk on radio sometime between 10 and 10:30
about Wikipedia's errors, how we improve the contet etc, etc, - in the
context of the recent bushfire / Greg Hunt story in the
From what I can see - quick summary:
- Before October 8 there were only sporadic changes;
- Between the 8th and 23rd, there was
- a paragraph added to say the worst had been in Victoria, with
examples;
- addition of the Warrumbungie Bushfire (Jan 2013), 2013 New South
Wales bushfires
Thanks for that rundown Charles. To clarify, has the specific climate
change discussion and section appeared *subsequent* to this media
controversy or was it there beforehand?
(Still on my mobile)
-Liam
On Friday, October 25, 2013, Charles Gregory wrote:
From what I can see - quick summary:
I forgot to say - thanks Liam for doing these sorts of media activities - I
trust you are happy to do these sorts of calls? I guess if they are
calling your mobile then you kind of don't have a lot of leeway :) You
certainly speak and present well in interviews and represent the chapter
and the
One could also comment that the citations added in the climate change section
are to major scientific organisations in Australia and internationally.
Sent from my iPad
On 25/10/2013, at 9:07 AM, Kerry Raymond kerry.raym...@gmail.com wrote:
The article has had a lot of edits in the past week
The article has had a lot of edits in the past week and the climate change
section looks like it has been added after the Greg Hunt story. I note a few
familiar usernames in the edit history as well as IPs. some reverting has
occurred.
How to phrase it ... Hmm ... I think a key point is that
-politics/political-news/greg-hunt-uses-wikipedia-research-to-dismiss-links-between-climate-change-and-bushfires-20131023-2w1w5.html
(Naturally today has been followed up with:
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/wikipedias-verdict-on-greg-hunt-terrible-at-his-job-20131024-2w34y.html
While I wouldn't advise mentioning it in a media interview, if there were
someway to remind people that Wikipedia is ultimately political, and deeper
analysis of the edit history and userbase reveals this wonderfully. If you
did venture into this topic Liam, you might point to the profile that the
I think that's a largely anecdotal depiction of WP editors. The 2011 survey
showed average age of editors was 31 but that older editors made more
contributions than younger ones. The survey showed about 90% male. It showed
above average education levels and did not ask if they were interested
Younger editors are more likely to be defending against vandalism than adding
content (as a gross generalization)
Sent from my iPad
On 25/10/2013, at 9:49 AM, Kerry Raymond kerry.raym...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that's a largely anecdotal depiction of WP editors. The 2011 survey
showed
I heard that comment on radio and immediately added a balancing ref to a
scientific
opinionhttps://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?shva=1#label/The+Conversation/141dca106db92c85n
that was published in *The Conversation* (an online journal of expert views
in easy-to-understand language, or as they put
Phew! Done.
Not sure if they will podcast it and put it online, but what I basically
said was to quote the *new* lede section that refers to C.C. and point out
that we're thankful for the amount of attention drawn to the article and
the topic as this causes it to increase in quality. I then reeled
Hi,
I'm in Rainbow Beach this weekend on holiday (and hadn't intended to get
involved in WP stuff), but Whiteghost is correct here. I would point out
that even Wikipedia, like most encyclopædias itself recommends that you use
the site as the start of research and gaining an understanding of a
13 matches
Mail list logo
