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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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" <[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
