Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Bushfire Wikipedia interview
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 including references to all bushfires in the Hunter, Central Coast, Port Stephens, etc (17 Oct 2013) - a See also to [[Angry Summer]] and an external link to a map of bushfires - minor copyediting On the 24th: - a few lines added to a lede paragraph referring to climate change and its affects on bushfire - including references to CSIRO, a random personal URL, and an article published at The Conversation. - a new section on climate change - 3 paragraphs - including references to The Climate Institute, The Climate Commission, Bushfire CRC, CSIRO, and an article at The Guardian. - minor copyediting Regards, Charles On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote: 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 media. I can obviously talk about how we get better and that we don't pretend to be perfect and that we encourage people to check the footnote and make their own assessment... But can someone please advise on the best way to phrase how the specific article [[Bushfires in Australia]] appeared last week and what has changed? I see there is a climate change section - was that already there a few days ago? (I can check the history when I get to the office, on my mobile at the moment, wanted to write to you straight away). Any advice, ideas? I recall there being a userspace proposal on the chapter wiki - can someone point me to that again and advise if you think it's appropriate for me to try to quote? Sincerely, -Liam -- wittylama.com Peace, love metadata -- wittylama.com Peace, love metadata ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Bushfire Wikipedia interview
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:
- 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 including references to all bushfires in the Hunter,
Central Coast, Port Stephens, etc (17 Oct 2013)
- a See also to [[Angry Summer]] and an external link to a map of
bushfires
- minor copyediting
On the 24th:
- a few lines added to a lede paragraph referring to climate change
and its affects on bushfire - including references to CSIRO, a random
personal URL, and an article published at The Conversation.
- a new section on climate change - 3 paragraphs - including
references to The Climate Institute, The Climate Commission, Bushfire CRC,
CSIRO, and an article at The Guardian.
- minor copyediting
Regards,
Charles
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Liam Wyatt
liamwy...@gmail.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'liamwy...@gmail.com');
wrote:
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 media.
I can obviously talk about how we get better and that we don't pretend to
be perfect and that we encourage people to check the footnote and make
their own assessment... But can someone please advise on the best way to
phrase how the specific article [[Bushfires in Australia]] appeared last
week and what has changed? I see there is a climate change section - was
that already there a few days ago? (I can check the history when I get to
the office, on my mobile at the moment, wanted to write to you straight
away).
Any advice, ideas? I recall there being a userspace proposal on the
chapter wiki - can someone point me to that again and advise if you think
it's appropriate for me to try to quote?
Sincerely,
-Liam
--
wittylama.com
Peace, love metadata
--
wittylama.com
Peace, love metadata
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org');
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
--
wittylama.com
Peace, love metadata
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Bushfire Wikipedia interview
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 community in a positive light! Regards, Charles On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Charles Gregory wikimediaau.li...@chuq.net wrote: 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 including references to all bushfires in the Hunter, Central Coast, Port Stephens, etc (17 Oct 2013) - a See also to [[Angry Summer]] and an external link to a map of bushfires - minor copyediting On the 24th: - a few lines added to a lede paragraph referring to climate change and its affects on bushfire - including references to CSIRO, a random personal URL, and an article published at The Conversation. - a new section on climate change - 3 paragraphs - including references to The Climate Institute, The Climate Commission, Bushfire CRC, CSIRO, and an article at The Guardian. - minor copyediting Regards, Charles On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote: 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 media. I can obviously talk about how we get better and that we don't pretend to be perfect and that we encourage people to check the footnote and make their own assessment... But can someone please advise on the best way to phrase how the specific article [[Bushfires in Australia]] appeared last week and what has changed? I see there is a climate change section - was that already there a few days ago? (I can check the history when I get to the office, on my mobile at the moment, wanted to write to you straight away). Any advice, ideas? I recall there being a userspace proposal on the chapter wiki - can someone point me to that again and advise if you think it's appropriate for me to try to quote? Sincerely, -Liam -- wittylama.com Peace, love metadata -- wittylama.com Peace, love metadata ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Bushfire Wikipedia interview
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 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 WP is a living encyclopedia and events (being both the current bush fires themselves and the Greg Hunt statement) focus attention onto those parts of WP, which results in them being updated and improved. In that regard some recent edits have added information about the relationship between climate change and bush fires including citations. WP's role is not to tell people whether or not to believe in climate change but to present the best quality summary of factual information (with citations for people who want to dig deeper) and let people make up their own minds. Greg Hunt has made up his mind in one way, others may come to different conclusions. We are delighted that Greg Hunt regards WP as an authoritative source but we would urge all readers to read the cited material if they need a detailed knowledge of a topic on which to make important decisions. Sent from my iPad On 25/10/2013, at 8:43 AM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote: 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 media. I can obviously talk about how we get better and that we don't pretend to be perfect and that we encourage people to check the footnote and make their own assessment... But can someone please advise on the best way to phrase how the specific article [[Bushfires in Australia]] appeared last week and what has changed? I see there is a climate change section - was that already there a few days ago? (I can check the history when I get to the office, on my mobile at the moment, wanted to write to you straight away). Any advice, ideas? I recall there being a userspace proposal on the chapter wiki - can someone point me to that again and advise if you think it's appropriate for me to try to quote? Sincerely, -Liam -- wittylama.com Peace, love metadata -- wittylama.com Peace, love metadata ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Bushfire Wikipedia interview
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 WP is a living encyclopedia and events (being both the current bush fires themselves and the Greg Hunt statement) focus attention onto those parts of WP, which results in them being updated and improved. In that regard some recent edits have added information about the relationship between climate change and bush fires including citations. WP's role is not to tell people whether or not to believe in climate change but to present the best quality summary of factual information (with citations for people who want to dig deeper) and let people make up their own minds. Greg Hunt has made up his mind in one way, others may come to different conclusions. We are delighted that Greg Hunt regards WP as an authoritative source but we would urge all readers to read the cited material if they need a detailed knowledge of a topic on which to make important decisions. Sent from my iPad On 25/10/2013, at 8:43 AM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote: 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 media. I can obviously talk about how we get better and that we don't pretend to be perfect and that we encourage people to check the footnote and make their own assessment... But can someone please advise on the best way to phrase how the specific article [[Bushfires in Australia]] appeared last week and what has changed? I see there is a climate change section - was that already there a few days ago? (I can check the history when I get to the office, on my mobile at the moment, wanted to write to you straight away). Any advice, ideas? I recall there being a userspace proposal on the chapter wiki - can someone point me to that again and advise if you think it's appropriate for me to try to quote? Sincerely, -Liam -- wittylama.com Peace, love metadata -- wittylama.com Peace, love metadata ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Bushfire Wikipedia interview
From what I see - yes it was. The first reports I heard were yesterday morning - and the first article has a published date of 23rd, so it seems like changes to that article were only in response to Greg Hunt's comments. For anyone who hasn't been following: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-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 ) - Charles On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 8:59 AM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote: 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: - 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 including references to all bushfires in the Hunter, Central Coast, Port Stephens, etc (17 Oct 2013) - a See also to [[Angry Summer]] and an external link to a map of bushfires - minor copyediting On the 24th: - a few lines added to a lede paragraph referring to climate change and its affects on bushfire - including references to CSIRO, a random personal URL, and an article published at The Conversation. - a new section on climate change - 3 paragraphs - including references to The Climate Institute, The Climate Commission, Bushfire CRC, CSIRO, and an article at The Guardian. - minor copyediting Regards, Charles On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote: 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 media. I can obviously talk about how we get better and that we don't pretend to be perfect and that we encourage people to check the footnote and make their own assessment... But can someone please advise on the best way to phrase how the specific article [[Bushfires in Australia]] appeared last week and what has changed? I see there is a climate change section - was that already there a few days ago? (I can check the history when I get to the office, on my mobile at the moment, wanted to write to you straight away). Any advice, ideas? I recall there being a userspace proposal on the chapter wiki - can someone point me to that again and advise if you think it's appropriate for me to try to quote? Sincerely, -Liam -- wittylama.com Peace, love metadata -- wittylama.com Peace, love metadata ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l -- wittylama.com Peace, love metadata ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Bushfire Wikipedia interview
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 stats for English WP paint... What were they: young adult male from the West Coast USA, educated, interested in military history, English as a primary or only language... If opportunity presented, you might point out that this self consciousness is part of a larger openness in the Wikimedia projects, something quite unique for large institutions. I guess it's a complicated way of reinforcing the advice to check sources. On 25/10/2013 9:11 AM, Kerry Raymond kerry.raym...@gmail.com wrote: 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 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 WP is a living encyclopedia and events (being both the current bush fires themselves and the Greg Hunt statement) focus attention onto those parts of WP, which results in them being updated and improved. In that regard some recent edits have added information about the relationship between climate change and bush fires including citations. WP's role is not to tell people whether or not to believe in climate change but to present the best quality summary of factual information (with citations for people who want to dig deeper) and let people make up their own minds. Greg Hunt has made up his mind in one way, others may come to different conclusions. We are delighted that Greg Hunt regards WP as an authoritative source but we would urge all readers to read the cited material if they need a detailed knowledge of a topic on which to make important decisions. Sent from my iPad On 25/10/2013, at 8:43 AM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote: 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 media. I can obviously talk about how we get better and that we don't pretend to be perfect and that we encourage people to check the footnote and make their own assessment... But can someone please advise on the best way to phrase how the specific article [[Bushfires in Australia]] appeared last week and what has changed? I see there is a climate change section - was that already there a few days ago? (I can check the history when I get to the office, on my mobile at the moment, wanted to write to you straight away). Any advice, ideas? I recall there being a userspace proposal on the chapter wiki - can someone point me to that again and advise if you think it's appropriate for me to try to quote? Sincerely, -Liam -- wittylama.com Peace, love metadata -- wittylama.com Peace, love metadata ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Bushfire Wikipedia interview
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 in military history (although I agree with you that military history does seem to be well-covered in WP, but then so are episodes of Seinfeld). I don't recall if it asked about location or languages spoken. I do recall another study that concluded in the western English-speaking nations, wikipedia editor numbers are broadly proportional to the general population, so given a lot of people live in West Coast USA, one would expect a lot of West Coast USA editors commensurately. Sent from my iPad On 25/10/2013, at 9:27 AM, Leigh Blackall leighblack...@gmail.com wrote: 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 stats for English WP paint... What were they: young adult male from the West Coast USA, educated, interested in military history, English as a primary or only language... If opportunity presented, you might point out that this self consciousness is part of a larger openness in the Wikimedia projects, something quite unique for large institutions. I guess it's a complicated way of reinforcing the advice to check sources. On 25/10/2013 9:11 AM, Kerry Raymond kerry.raym...@gmail.com wrote: 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 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 WP is a living encyclopedia and events (being both the current bush fires themselves and the Greg Hunt statement) focus attention onto those parts of WP, which results in them being updated and improved. In that regard some recent edits have added information about the relationship between climate change and bush fires including citations. WP's role is not to tell people whether or not to believe in climate change but to present the best quality summary of factual information (with citations for people who want to dig deeper) and let people make up their own minds. Greg Hunt has made up his mind in one way, others may come to different conclusions. We are delighted that Greg Hunt regards WP as an authoritative source but we would urge all readers to read the cited material if they need a detailed knowledge of a topic on which to make important decisions. Sent from my iPad On 25/10/2013, at 8:43 AM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote: 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 media. I can obviously talk about how we get better and that we don't pretend to be perfect and that we encourage people to check the footnote and make their own assessment... But can someone please advise on the best way to phrase how the specific article [[Bushfires in Australia]] appeared last week and what has changed? I see there is a climate change section - was that already there a few days ago? (I can check the history when I get to the office, on my mobile at the moment, wanted to write to you straight away). Any advice, ideas? I recall there being a userspace proposal on the chapter wiki - can someone point me to that again and advise if you think it's appropriate for me to try to quote? Sincerely, -Liam -- wittylama.com Peace, love metadata -- wittylama.com Peace, love metadata ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Bushfire Wikipedia interview
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 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 in military history (although I agree with you that military history does seem to be well-covered in WP, but then so are episodes of Seinfeld). I don't recall if it asked about location or languages spoken. I do recall another study that concluded in the western English-speaking nations, wikipedia editor numbers are broadly proportional to the general population, so given a lot of people live in West Coast USA, one would expect a lot of West Coast USA editors commensurately. Sent from my iPad On 25/10/2013, at 9:27 AM, Leigh Blackall leighblack...@gmail.com wrote: 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 stats for English WP paint... What were they: young adult male from the West Coast USA, educated, interested in military history, English as a primary or only language... If opportunity presented, you might point out that this self consciousness is part of a larger openness in the Wikimedia projects, something quite unique for large institutions. I guess it's a complicated way of reinforcing the advice to check sources. On 25/10/2013 9:11 AM, Kerry Raymond kerry.raym...@gmail.com wrote: 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 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 WP is a living encyclopedia and events (being both the current bush fires themselves and the Greg Hunt statement) focus attention onto those parts of WP, which results in them being updated and improved. In that regard some recent edits have added information about the relationship between climate change and bush fires including citations. WP's role is not to tell people whether or not to believe in climate change but to present the best quality summary of factual information (with citations for people who want to dig deeper) and let people make up their own minds. Greg Hunt has made up his mind in one way, others may come to different conclusions. We are delighted that Greg Hunt regards WP as an authoritative source but we would urge all readers to read the cited material if they need a detailed knowledge of a topic on which to make important decisions. Sent from my iPad On 25/10/2013, at 8:43 AM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote: 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 media. I can obviously talk about how we get better and that we don't pretend to be perfect and that we encourage people to check the footnote and make their own assessment... But can someone please advise on the best way to phrase how the specific article [[Bushfires in Australia]] appeared last week and what has changed? I see there is a climate change section - was that already there a few days ago? (I can check the history when I get to the office, on my mobile at the moment, wanted to write to you straight away). Any advice, ideas? I recall there being a userspace proposal on the chapter wiki - can someone point me to that again and advise if you think it's appropriate for me to try to quote? Sincerely, -Liam -- wittylama.com Peace, love metadata -- wittylama.com Peace, love metadata ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l ___ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Bushfire Wikipedia interview
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 it academic excellence, journalistic flair). This was followed by a ref to a more comprehensive report. Then a little while later a section on climate change was added. I don't think that the demographics of WP are relevant here. The points to make about this, I think, are these: - the politician using WP the way he did only referred to the first lead paragraph without reading or noting the following summary qualifiers that show the complexity of the matter. - WP provides this this complexity if you pay attention to it and read it properly; - the ongoing improvements show the continuous updating; - the usefulness is being able to find easily, for example, BOTH an easy to read scientific view AND a detailed report. A good reader service, really. Whiteghost.ink On 25 October 2013 09:52, Kerry Raymond kerry.raym...@gmail.com wrote: 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 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 in military history (although I agree with you that military history does seem to be well-covered in WP, but then so are episodes of Seinfeld). I don't recall if it asked about location or languages spoken. I do recall another study that concluded in the western English-speaking nations, wikipedia editor numbers are broadly proportional to the general population, so given a lot of people live in West Coast USA, one would expect a lot of West Coast USA editors commensurately. Sent from my iPad On 25/10/2013, at 9:27 AM, Leigh Blackall leighblack...@gmail.com wrote: 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 stats for English WP paint... What were they: young adult male from the West Coast USA, educated, interested in military history, English as a primary or only language... If opportunity presented, you might point out that this self consciousness is part of a larger openness in the Wikimedia projects, something quite unique for large institutions. I guess it's a complicated way of reinforcing the advice to check sources. On 25/10/2013 9:11 AM, Kerry Raymond kerry.raym...@gmail.com wrote: 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 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 WP is a living encyclopedia and events (being both the current bush fires themselves and the Greg Hunt statement) focus attention onto those parts of WP, which results in them being updated and improved. In that regard some recent edits have added information about the relationship between climate change and bush fires including citations. WP's role is not to tell people whether or not to believe in climate change but to present the best quality summary of factual information (with citations for people who want to dig deeper) and let people make up their own minds. Greg Hunt has made up his mind in one way, others may come to different conclusions. We are delighted that Greg Hunt regards WP as an authoritative source but we would urge all readers to read the cited material if they need a detailed knowledge of a topic on which to make important decisions. Sent from my iPad On 25/10/2013, at 8:43 AM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote: 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 media. I can obviously talk about how we get better and that we don't pretend to be perfect and that we encourage people to check the footnote
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Bushfire Wikipedia interview
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 off the range of organisations that are now cited related to C.C. I tried to steer it quickly away from isn't the Minister silly for doing this kind of things because I wanted to focus on how TO use it properly and also to not look like I'm criticising the gov't (public servant talking here after all). I tried to emphasise that we're all volunteers but not sure if that cut-through. I mentioned several times that the quaility is article-by-article and we ask people to interrogate their sources - whether it's WP or anything else - and the 'proper' use depends on what you're doing with the info. I talked about how the more controversial the topic the more likely it is to improve and be neutral because of the number of eyeballs on it. I wasn't expecting her to mention the National Library, and was going to tell the producer to cut that from the intro in order to differentiate my volunteer and my public-servant roles, but they put me straight online without the chance to say. So, at the end she basically gave me a free shot to promote the library (so, what are you doing at the National Library?) as a kind of quid pro quo - so I used it to spruik our forthcoming exhibition Mapping our World. It would have been remiss of me not to use that opportunity but I was trying to keep the two separate. The last couple of times I've done radio interviews I got a call from other ABC local stations a few hours later asking if I could do a repeat interview, so that might happen again today. Thank you everyone for your quick help giving me backup on this. As Charles asked - Yes, I'm very happy to do these kinds of things and always happy to promote our mission to a wider audience. I'm not actually listed on any contact us pages (e.g. here https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_room ) but I think I must be in the system somewhere in the ABC tagged under Wikipedia :-) All the best, -Liam wittylama.com Peace, love metadata On 25 October 2013 10:24, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote: Thank you everyone. I'm on hold now - going live any second. http://www.abc.net.au/sydney/programs/listenlive.htm wittylama.com Peace, love metadata On 25 October 2013 10:20, G. White whiteghost@gmail.com wrote: Correction:* The Conversation*'s tagline is academic rigour, journalistic flair. This politician was quite disigenuously trying to use WP as a source of popular view to give credence to his own political stance. But WP helpfully and neutrally provides both the politician's view AND the scientific view. Readers can make up their own minds about whose opinion is more relevant to the issue under discussion. Whiteghost.ink On 25 October 2013 10:07, G. White whiteghost@gmail.com wrote: 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 it academic excellence, journalistic flair). This was followed by a ref to a more comprehensive report. Then a little while later a section on climate change was added. I don't think that the demographics of WP are relevant here. The points to make about this, I think, are these: - the politician using WP the way he did only referred to the first lead paragraph without reading or noting the following summary qualifiers that show the complexity of the matter. - WP provides this this complexity if you pay attention to it and read it properly; - the ongoing improvements show the continuous updating; - the usefulness is being able to find easily, for example, BOTH an easy to read scientific view AND a detailed report. A good reader service, really. Whiteghost.ink On 25 October 2013 09:52, Kerry Raymond kerry.raym...@gmail.com wrote: 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 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 in military history (although I agree with you that military history does seem to be well-covered in WP, but then so are episodes of Seinfeld). I don't recall if it asked about location or languages spoken. I do recall another study that concluded in the western
Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Bushfire Wikipedia interview
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 topic, not as the complete sum of any reading you do on it. A cursory reading of a Wikipedia article will not on its own give a government minister enough depth of knowledge to start forming national policy on any issue. Cheers, Craig Franklin President - Wikimedia Australia On 25 October 2013 09:08, wikimediaau-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote: Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:07:58 +1100 From: G. White whiteghost@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Australia Chapter wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Bushfire Wikipedia interview Message-ID: camrpczwjw3vof4yu8-wm6muxmtnewkdjeab+wmz55adaxc2...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 I heard that comment on radio and immediately added a balancing ref to a scientific opinion https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?shva=1#label/The+Conversation/141dca106db92c85 n that was published in *The Conversation* (an online journal of expert views in easy-to-understand language, or as they put it academic excellence, journalistic flair). This was followed by a ref to a more comprehensive report. Then a little while later a section on climate change was added. I don't think that the demographics of WP are relevant here. The points to make about this, I think, are these: - the politician using WP the way he did only referred to the first lead paragraph without reading or noting the following summary qualifiers that show the complexity of the matter. - WP provides this this complexity if you pay attention to it and read it properly; - the ongoing improvements show the continuous updating; - the usefulness is being able to find easily, for example, BOTH an easy to read scientific view AND a detailed report. A good reader service, really. Whiteghost.ink On 25 October 2013 09:52, Kerry Raymond kerry.raym...@gmail.com wrote: 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 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 in military history (although I agree with you that military history does seem to be well-covered in WP, but then so are episodes of Seinfeld). I don't recall if it asked about location or languages spoken. I do recall another study that concluded in the western English-speaking nations, wikipedia editor numbers are broadly proportional to the general population, so given a lot of people live in West Coast USA, one would expect a lot of West Coast USA editors commensurately. Sent from my iPad On 25/10/2013, at 9:27 AM, Leigh Blackall leighblack...@gmail.com wrote: 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 stats for English WP paint... What were they: young adult male from the West Coast USA, educated, interested in military history, English as a primary or only language... If opportunity presented, you might point out that this self consciousness is part of a larger openness in the Wikimedia projects, something quite unique for large institutions. I guess it's a complicated way of reinforcing the advice to check sources. On 25/10/2013 9:11 AM, Kerry Raymond kerry.raym...@gmail.com wrote: 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 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 WP is a living encyclopedia and events (being both the current bush fires themselves and the Greg Hunt statement) focus attention onto those parts of WP, which results in them being updated and improved. In that regard some recent edits have added information about the relationship between climate change and bush fires
