I heard that comment on radio and immediately added a balancing ref to a scientific opinion<https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?shva=1#label/The+Conversation/141dca106db92c85>n that was published in *The Conversation* (an online journal of expert views in easy-to-understand language, or as they put it "academic excellence, journalistic flair"). This was followed by a ref to a more comprehensive report. Then a little while later a section on climate change was added.
I don't think that the demographics of WP are relevant here. The points to make about this, I think, are these: - the politician using WP the way he did only referred to the first lead paragraph without reading or noting the following summary qualifiers that show the complexity of the matter. - WP provides this this complexity if you pay attention to it and read it properly; - the ongoing improvements show the continuous updating; - the usefulness is being able to find easily, for example, BOTH an easy to read scientific view AND a detailed report. A good reader service, really. Whiteghost.ink On 25 October 2013 09:52, Kerry Raymond <kerry.raym...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
