MalcolmMcDonald (talk | contribs) |
MalcolmMcDonald (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
[[User:Martin Hogbin|Martin Hogbin]] - politics is an essential part of this national and global issue.<br> |
[[User:Martin Hogbin|Martin Hogbin]] - politics is an essential part of this national and global issue.<br> |
||
[[User:Spoonkymonkey|Spoonkymonkey]], zero-involvement visitor, 1250 article edits - per MM. |
[[User:Spoonkymonkey|Spoonkymonkey]], zero-involvement visitor, 1250 article edits - per MM. |
||
<br>[[user:HistorianofScience|HistorianofScience]] - articles should first and foremost inform the reader about the science, politics secondarily. |
<br>[[user:HistorianofScience|HistorianofScience]] - articles should first and foremost inform the reader about the science, politics secondarily. |
||
|- |
|- |
||
| Section on "Debate and skepticism" should '''reflect the views of skeptics''' |
| Section on "Debate and skepticism" should '''reflect the views of skeptics''' |
||
Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
[[User:MalcolmMcDonald|MalcolmMcDonald]] - rename section "Dissent", start it with names of prominent sceptics and fairly represent their views.<br> |
[[User:MalcolmMcDonald|MalcolmMcDonald]] - rename section "Dissent", start it with names of prominent sceptics and fairly represent their views.<br> |
||
[[User:Spoonkymonkey|Spoonkymonkey]], zero-involvement visitor, 1250 article edits - per MM, article seeks to hide the fact the debate exists at all. |
[[User:Spoonkymonkey|Spoonkymonkey]], zero-involvement visitor, 1250 article edits - per MM, article seeks to hide the fact the debate exists at all. |
||
<br>[[user:HistorianofScience|HistorianofScience]] - I am a mild sceptic who would like to learn more about what the sceptical views are, and more important ''why'' the sceptics hold these view. It is impossible to get any sense of this from the current articles. |
<br>[[user:HistorianofScience|HistorianofScience]] - I am a mild sceptic who would like to learn more about what the sceptical views are, and more important ''why'' the sceptics hold these view. It is impossible to get any sense of this from the current articles. |
||
|- |
|- |
||
| '''Deletion and archiving of discussions''' makes cooperative editing and improvement extremely difficult |
| '''Deletion and archiving of discussions''' makes cooperative editing and improvement extremely difficult |
||
Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
[[Special:Contributions/83.203.210.23|83.203.210.23]] - no serious person would even bother for two minutes trying to help improve the article if DISCUSSION ITSELF is wildly censored.<br> |
[[Special:Contributions/83.203.210.23|83.203.210.23]] - no serious person would even bother for two minutes trying to help improve the article if DISCUSSION ITSELF is wildly censored.<br> |
||
[[User:MalcolmMcDonald|MalcolmMcDonald]] - while there is some trolling, the counter-measures cause much more harm |
[[User:MalcolmMcDonald|MalcolmMcDonald]] - while there is some trolling, the counter-measures cause much more harm |
||
<br>[[user:HistorianofScience|HistorianofScience]] - the closing of discussions is certainly too abrupt. I suffered from this myself |
<br>[[user:HistorianofScience|HistorianofScience]] - the closing of discussions is certainly too abrupt. I suffered from this myself. |
||
|- |
|- |
||
| Article reads '''like an advertisement''' |
| Article reads '''like an advertisement''' |
Revision as of 12:39, 1 February 2010
Reads like an advertisement
I was not the one who originally made this comment but here are some examples that I found in a quick glance. Note that I am not questioning the truth of the statements.
'The IPCC's Working Group III is responsible for crafting reports on mitigation...' ...using only the finest ingredients.
'These basic conclusions have been endorsed by more than 40 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries'. ...and 9 out of 10 cats prefer it.
The paragraph that actually talks about scepticism starting: 'Some global warming skeptics in the science or political communities dispute...', is the last one in the section, essentially as a disclaimer. ...the value of your investment may go down as well as up.
Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
We need some comments
Malcolm, have you contacted involved editors and asked them to comment here? Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- I imagine this being a slow-burning project and I'm contacting critics of the article first. If I can get a reasonable turn-out (perhaps 20 or so) then I can list and/or request that supporters of the current article show their hand. All suggestions gratefully recieved. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Not canvassing
This is not a vote, it's a work in progress trying to discover whether the body of editors is "happy" with the NPOV of these articles.
I am contacting the "unhappy" first because they have more to say, need a lot longer to put it up and think about it, and because they're the only ones who can provide the feedback on what they consider the real issues to be.
I'm not even sure how many of the "happy" editors will agree to put their names here, I may end up with a note saying "I have listed for myself xx editors I consider to be happy, this compares with xx editors prepared to say in public that they are unhappy".
I am prepared to answer all questions and respond to all comments, but intend to either keep this TalkPage clean or move other material to the top. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 09:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Non-specialist visitors speak
(This non-specialist editor made 1,404 edits to 738 unique articles before commenting here).
I posted to your chart originally as an IP (69.165.150.81 (talk)). Look at my edits. I did, in effect, stumble on the AGW pages when I was looking for something. Check my edits. For two years, I never touched those pages. I wrote and copy edited historical bios, for the most part. I haven't engaged in discussion board debates or been interested in doing any more than fixing the many, many writing errors, spelling mistakes and grammatical problems I find when I surf Wikipedia.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Improvement Chart
MASTER copy of the "Improvement Chart". Please add your name to the relevant categories, perhaps with a brief description of exactly what concerns you. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 08:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for the invitation to contribute. To which article does this refer? You do realise that there is a whole series of articles, including Global warming controversy, Scientific opinion on climate change, and Politics of global warming. . . dave souza, talk 20:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- The chart refers to all the GW articles and all the things they may have in commmon. It's here to document the kind of things people may think are going wrong. I've tried to avoid anything that might offend like reference to PA from some quarters. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Which change? | Editors views and wish for change |
---|---|
The article needs to include the politics of GW. Restricting it to the science tends to mislead. | MalcolmMcDonald - "politics" is what brings most readers. No evidence of dissent (& no mention of newspaper concerns) looks like censorship or POV. The IPCC itself and it's AR4 report (referenced 26 times?) are hugely political.
Martin Hogbin - politics is an essential part of this national and global issue. |
Section on "Debate and skepticism" should reflect the views of skeptics | Martin Hogbin - currently, the views of skeptics are not represented properly anywhere in the article.
MalcolmMcDonald - rename section "Dissent", start it with names of prominent sceptics and fairly represent their views. |
Deletion and archiving of discussions makes cooperative editing and improvement extremely difficult | Martin Hogbin - rapid deletion and archiving of discussions from the talk page make discussion of many important and relevant issues impossible.
83.203.210.23 - no serious person would even bother for two minutes trying to help improve the article if DISCUSSION ITSELF is wildly censored. |
Article reads like an advertisement | 83.203.210.23 - is requested to provide examples by Awickert (talk)
Martin Hogbin - three examples presented above read like "using only the finest ingredients"' and "9 out of 10 cats prefer it" and "the value of your investment may go down as well as up". |
Article fails to be informative | MalcolmMcDonald - one side of the much thornier evolution debate was fully documented at TalkOrigins by 2006. Making WP (better software & 1000 times more helpers) truly informative and nearly "complete" can't be hard.
Martin Hogbin |
Add Key-words and links to aid navigation | MalcolmMcDonald - readers expect to search for key-words such as "Amazon" and "Antarctic". Ditto the names of prominent skeptics, eg Monckton on tour of Australia Jan/Feb 2010 with credible sounding objections to "the science".
Spoonkymonkey, zero-involvement visitor, 1250 article edits - what possible objection? |
Discussing GW alone misleads "Global Warming" overlaps anthropogenic Global Warming. |
MalcolmMcDonald - per another editor here. |
Prevalence of borderline BLP makes articles appear POV | (put your name here, with maximum 2 lines of examples) |
No major changes needed. No popular concerns, only science. No "politics", broadly construed. |
There's not much wrong with the article as it stands now since it describes the viewpoints of knowledgeable people in the field as published in peer-reviewed documents. Newspaper reports are almost never helpful. No harm comes from information being a month or even six behind the state of public debate. (Add your name here, with caveats if you have them). |