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
On Feb 2, 2014 2:35 AM, "rupert THURNER" <rupert.thurner(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
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 farmers
law 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, invents
farmer, uses it, may get higher yield, may use monsanto herbicide as his
crop is resitant to it, may ge sued by monsanto for patent infringement
consumer, 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 beans
rupert
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Nkansah Rexford <nkansahrexford(a)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(a)gmail.com> wrote:
It's been a while I created a Wikipedia
article so I went for the GMO
controversy.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_organism_controversy_(Ghana)>
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<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reviewing>
.
I am also holding a hangout on how the whole process went down for new
editors. Email me if interested.
Regards,
Sandister Tei
-----
Cardiff University
JOMEC -- International Journalism
www.sandistertei.com | +447448223686
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-GH mailing list
Wikimedia-GH(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-gh
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-GH mailing list
Wikimedia-GH(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-gh
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-GH mailing list
Wikimedia-GH(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-gh