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 

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

Reply via email to