Correction:* The Conversation*'s tagline is "academic rigour, journalistic flair".
This politician was quite disigenuously trying to use WP as a source of popular view to give credence to his own political stance. But WP helpfully and neutrally provides both the politician's view AND the scientific view. Readers can make up their own minds about whose opinion is more relevant to the issue under discussion. Whiteghost.ink On 25 October 2013 10:07, G. White <whiteghost....@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >>> Wikimediaauemail@example.com >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimediaau-l mailing list >>> Wikimediaaufirstname.lastname@example.org >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimediaau-l mailing list >> Wikimediaauemail@example.com >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l >> >> >
_______________________________________________ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaaufirstname.lastname@example.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l