Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Bushfire Wikipedia interview

[Craig Franklin]

Hi,

I'm in Rainbow Beach this weekend on holiday (and hadn't intended to get
involved in WP stuff), but Whiteghost is correct here.  I would point out
that even Wikipedia, like most encyclopædias itself recommends that you use
the site as the start of research and gaining an understanding of a topic,
not as the complete sum of any reading you do on it.

A cursory reading of a Wikipedia article will not on its own give a
government minister enough depth of knowledge to start forming national
policy on any issue.

Cheers,
Craig Franklin
President - Wikimedia Australia



On 25 October 2013 09:08,  wrote:

> Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:07:58 +1100
> From: "G. White" 
> To: Wikimedia Australia Chapter 
> Subject: Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Bushfire Wikipedia interview
> Message-ID:
> <
> camrpczwjw3vof4yu8-wm6muxmtnewkdjeab+wmz55adaxc2...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> 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  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 
> 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 
> 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"  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 
> 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
> 

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Bushfire Wikipedia interview

[Liam Wyatt]

Phew! Done.
Not sure if they will podcast it and put it online, but what I basically
said was to quote the *new* lede section that refers to C.C. and point out
that we're thankful for the amount of attention drawn to the article and
the topic as this causes it to increase in quality. I then reeled off the
range of organisations that are now cited related to C.C.
I tried to steer it quickly away from "isn't the Minister silly for doing
this" kind of things because I wanted to focus on how TO use it properly
and also to not look like I'm criticising the gov't (public servant talking
here after all). I tried to emphasise that we're all volunteers but not
sure if that cut-through. I mentioned several times that the quaility is
article-by-article and we ask people to interrogate their sources - whether
it's WP or anything else - and the 'proper' use depends on what you're
doing with the info. I talked about how the more controversial the topic
the more likely it is to improve and be neutral because of the number of
eyeballs on it.

I wasn't expecting her to mention the National Library, and was going to
tell the producer to cut that from the intro in order to differentiate my
volunteer and my public-servant roles, but they put me straight online
without the chance to say. So, at the end she basically gave me a free shot
to promote the library ("so, what are you doing at the National Library?")
as a kind of quid pro quo - so I used it to spruik our forthcoming
exhibition "Mapping our World". It would have been remiss of me not to use
that opportunity but I was trying to keep the two separate.

The last couple of times I've done radio interviews I got a call from other
ABC local stations a few hours later asking if I could do a repeat
interview, so that might happen again today.

Thank you everyone for your quick help giving me backup on this.
As Charles asked - Yes, I'm very happy to do these kinds of things and
always happy to promote our mission to a wider audience. I'm not actually
listed on any "contact us" pages (e.g. here
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_room ) but I think I must be in
"the system" somewhere in the ABC tagged under "Wikipedia" :-)

All the best,
-Liam


wittylama.com
Peace, love & metadata


On 25 October 2013 10:24, Liam Wyatt  wrote:

> 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  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  wrote:
>>
>>> I heard that comment on radio and immediately added a balancing ref to a
>>> scientific 
>>> opinionn
>>> 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  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 
 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 

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Bushfire Wikipedia interview

[Liam Wyatt]

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  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  wrote:
>
>> I heard that comment on radio and immediately added a balancing ref to a
>> scientific 
>> opinionn
>> 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  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 
>>> 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 
>>> 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"  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 
 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)
>>

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Bushfire Wikipedia interview

[G. White]

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  wrote:

> I heard that comment on radio and immediately added a balancing ref to a
> scientific 
> opinionn
> 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  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  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 
>> 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"  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 
>>> 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
>>> top

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Bushfire Wikipedia interview

[G. White]

I heard that comment on radio and immediately added a balancing ref to a
scientific 
opinionn
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  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  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  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"  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  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  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

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Bushfire Wikipedia interview

[Kerry Raymond]

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  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  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"  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  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  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
>> 
>> _

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Bushfire Wikipedia interview

[Kerry Raymond]

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  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"  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  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  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/wikimedia

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Bushfire Wikipedia interview

[Charles Gregory]

That's true - a WP article is only as good as the sources which it uses!

Also - could I ask facebook/twitter users to like/share/retweet these posts?
 https://twitter.com/wm_au/status/393501352606695424
 https://www.facebook.com/wikimedia.au/posts/572865989433764

Regards,

Charles



On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Kerry Raymond 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  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  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

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Bushfire Wikipedia interview

[Leigh Blackall]

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"  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  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  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

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Bushfire Wikipedia interview

[Kerry Raymond]

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  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

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Bushfire Wikipedia interview

[Charles Gregory]

>From what I see - yes it was.  The first reports I heard were yesterday
morning - and the first article has a published date of 23rd, so it seems
like changes to that article were only in response to Greg Hunt's comments.

For anyone who hasn't been following:
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/greg-hunt-uses-wikipedia-research-to-dismiss-links-between-climate-change-and-bushfires-20131023-2w1w5.html

(Naturally today has been followed up with:
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/wikipedias-verdict-on-greg-hunt-terrible-at-his-job-20131024-2w34y.html
 )

- Charles





On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 8:59 AM, Liam Wyatt  wrote:

> Thanks for that rundown Charles. To clarify, has the specific climate
> change discussion and section appeared *subsequent* to this media
> controversy or was it there beforehand?
>
> (Still on my mobile)
> -Liam
>
>
>
> On Friday, October 25, 2013, Charles Gregory wrote:
>
>> From what I can see - quick summary:
>>
>>
>> - Before October 8 there were only sporadic changes;
>>
>> - Between the 8th and 23rd, there was
>> - a paragraph added to say the worst had been in Victoria, with
>> examples;
>> - addition of the Warrumbungie Bushfire (Jan 2013), 2013 New South
>> Wales bushfires including references to all bushfires in the Hunter,
>> Central Coast, Port Stephens, etc (17 Oct 2013)
>> - a See also to [[Angry Summer]] and an external link to a map of
>> bushfires
>> - minor copyediting
>>
>> On the 24th:
>> - a few lines added to a lede paragraph referring to climate change
>> and its affects on bushfire - including references to CSIRO, a random
>> personal URL, and an article published at The Conversation.
>> - a new section on climate change - 3 paragraphs - including
>> references to The Climate Institute, The Climate Commission, Bushfire CRC,
>> CSIRO, and an article at The Guardian.
>> - minor copyediting
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Charles
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Liam Wyatt  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
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> --
> 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

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Bushfire Wikipedia interview

[Kerry Raymond]

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  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  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

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Bushfire Wikipedia interview

[Charles Gregory]

I forgot to say - thanks Liam for doing these sorts of media activities - I
trust you are happy to do these sorts of calls?  I guess if they are
calling your mobile then you kind of don't have a lot of leeway :)  You
certainly speak and present well in interviews and represent the chapter
and the community in a positive light!

Regards,

Charles



On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Charles Gregory  wrote:

> From what I can see - quick summary:
>
>
> - Before October 8 there were only sporadic changes;
>
> - Between the 8th and 23rd, there was
> - a paragraph added to say the worst had been in Victoria, with
> examples;
> - addition of the Warrumbungie Bushfire (Jan 2013), 2013 New South
> Wales bushfires including references to all bushfires in the Hunter,
> Central Coast, Port Stephens, etc (17 Oct 2013)
> - a See also to [[Angry Summer]] and an external link to a map of
> bushfires
> - minor copyediting
>
> On the 24th:
> - a few lines added to a lede paragraph referring to climate change
> and its affects on bushfire - including references to CSIRO, a random
> personal URL, and an article published at The Conversation.
> - a new section on climate change - 3 paragraphs - including
> references to The Climate Institute, The Climate Commission, Bushfire CRC,
> CSIRO, and an article at The Guardian.
> - minor copyediting
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Charles
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Liam Wyatt  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

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Bushfire Wikipedia interview

[Liam Wyatt]

Thanks for that rundown Charles. To clarify, has the specific climate
change discussion and section appeared *subsequent* to this media
controversy or was it there beforehand?

(Still on my mobile)
-Liam



On Friday, October 25, 2013, Charles Gregory wrote:

> From what I can see - quick summary:
>
>
> - Before October 8 there were only sporadic changes;
>
> - Between the 8th and 23rd, there was
> - a paragraph added to say the worst had been in Victoria, with
> examples;
> - addition of the Warrumbungie Bushfire (Jan 2013), 2013 New South
> Wales bushfires including references to all bushfires in the Hunter,
> Central Coast, Port Stephens, etc (17 Oct 2013)
> - a See also to [[Angry Summer]] and an external link to a map of
> bushfires
> - minor copyediting
>
> On the 24th:
> - a few lines added to a lede paragraph referring to climate change
> and its affects on bushfire - including references to CSIRO, a random
> personal URL, and an article published at The Conversation.
> - a new section on climate change - 3 paragraphs - including
> references to The Climate Institute, The Climate Commission, Bushfire CRC,
> CSIRO, and an article at The Guardian.
> - minor copyediting
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Charles
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Liam Wyatt 
> 
> > 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 > 'Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org');>
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
>>
>>
>

-- 
wittylama.com
Peace, love & metadata
___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Bushfire Wikipedia interview

[Charles Gregory]

>From what I can see - quick summary:


- Before October 8 there were only sporadic changes;

- Between the 8th and 23rd, there was
- a paragraph added to say the worst had been in Victoria, with
examples;
- addition of the Warrumbungie Bushfire (Jan 2013), 2013 New South
Wales bushfires including references to all bushfires in the Hunter,
Central Coast, Port Stephens, etc (17 Oct 2013)
- a See also to [[Angry Summer]] and an external link to a map of
bushfires
- minor copyediting

On the 24th:
- a few lines added to a lede paragraph referring to climate change and
its affects on bushfire - including references to CSIRO, a random personal
URL, and an article published at The Conversation.
- a new section on climate change - 3 paragraphs - including references
to The Climate Institute, The Climate Commission, Bushfire CRC, CSIRO, and
an article at The Guardian.
- minor copyediting


Regards,

Charles




On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Liam Wyatt  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