I meant to send this to the list. Geoff Beacon
----- Original message ----- From: Geoff Beacon <[email protected]> To: James Salsman <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Carbon footprints on Wikipedia. Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 12:09:05 +0100 James, Thanks for your elucidation of primary and secondary sources but I am uneasy about your scoring system. e.g. the New Scientist is good because it "has a reputation for fact checking". I think most people who look into the topic will agree that, for example, the carbon footprint of beef is between 10 and 40 times its own weight in Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2e) so how would an entry in Wikipedia that said the following fit: [The carbon footprint of beef] Provisional answer. Very large. Somewhere between 10 and 40 times its own weight in Carbon Dioxide Equivalent. At present Wikipedia's silence does it a disservice giving a false overall impression of the state of knowledge - yes I mean knowledge. You can see my various websites thinks that should be broached even if not completely resolved. I don't really have the time to become a serious Wikipedia contributor. I don't have the time to keep up most of my websites. I would much rather Wikipedia was the source but I have been rather goaded into this response. "The inherent complexity and controversy of carbon footprints". What do you mean by that? The complexity argument is how the government sources get away with ignoring important issues like the missing feedbacks in climate models or the radiative forcing index in air travel - we don't properly understand them so we will ignore them. Best wishes Geoff ----- Original message ----- From: James Salsman <[email protected]> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Carbon footprints on Wikipedia. Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 16:38:30 +0800 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/10.1111/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. -- Geoff Beacon [email protected] -- Geoff Beacon [email protected] _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
