Thank you everyone. I'm on hold now - going live any second. http://www.abc.net.au/sydney/programs/listenlive.htm
wittylama.com Peace, love & metadata On 25 October 2013 10:20, G. White <whiteghost....@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >>>> 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Wikimediaau-l mailing list Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
