That's true - a WP article is only as good as the sources which it uses! Also - could I ask facebook/twitter users to like/share/retweet these posts? https://twitter.com/wm_au/status/393501352606695424 https://www.facebook.com/wikimedia.au/posts/572865989433764
Regards, Charles On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Kerry Raymond <[email protected]>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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimediaau-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l > >
_______________________________________________ Wikimediaau-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
