My personal opinion: I think Sandister's presentation of the article is very satisfactory, it basically gives the genesis of the argument and doesn't take sides.
Going into details about who stands to loose or win will be pretty much up to the readers themselves to decide after the fact (with all the references and evidence provided in the article), especially when one considers the fact that this is an important developing story and there are still issues yet to be decided around it. Issues that could lead to a total repeal of the GMO laws by government or further entrench it.
Either way, the approach by Sandister will serve as an important reminder to people about how it all started, there is always room for future edits of such developing stories and for now, I'd say just let's do some more proof reading but the way the article stands is good enough, in my opinion.
That said, my opinion is not written in stone and all are free to protest it, but at least I've made it known. Y'all have a good one.
Oral Ofori: lnkd.in/NCbbmg
you probably saw https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_crops. you could somehow build the article around the stakeholders and what they gain and loose, if they are heard or not. some stakeholders and the reason for beeing one:patent holder (like monsanto), invents it, get patent fees from farmerslaw maker (member of parliament), government, decides the usage, may get money from lobbyists, may work for monsanto
research institution, researcher, may get funding from monsanto, make studies, inventsfarmer, uses it, may get higher yield, may use monsanto herbicide as his crop is resitant to it, may ge sued by monsanto for patent infringementconsumer, eats it, may want a label, two cases: (1) is modified: e.g. genetically modified rice sold, (2) modified crop used: chicken feed with genetically modified beansrupertOn Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Nkansah Rexford <nkansahrexford@gmail.com> wrote:
Perhaps the title of the article should be without the word controversy. That's what I'm thinking. Went through and its got a good start.
I'm good for the hangout chat too. When is it happening.
Rexford | Africa Center | wikiafrica.net | sent from Tab
On Feb 1, 2014 12:06 AM, "Sandister Tei" <sandistertei@gmail.com> wrote:It's been a while I created a Wikipedia article so I went for the GMO controversy.Hopefully it will be allowed to stand alone and not merged with any other international GMO discussion.Nonetheless, I am inviting one of you to review it. Here is how.I am also holding a hangout on how the whole process went down for new editors. Email me if interested.Regards,Sandister Tei-----_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-GH mailing list
Wikimedia-GH@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-gh
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-GH mailing list
Wikimedia-GH@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-gh
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-GH mailing list
Wikimedia-GH@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-gh