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 <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? -- Tim Starling _______________________________________________ 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>
