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
>> 
_______________________________________________
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Reply via email to