An authoritative and easy to used resource giving of the effect or our everyday activities is essential if voters are to know enough to influence politics.
I cant find any entries on Wikipedia to match this. To some extent I blame Wikipedia's over emphasis on peer review and official sources. The [Carbon footprint] entry is probably counter-productive as it implies that the quoted sources are more reliable than they are. I fear some of these sources are incorrect, hide their proprietary information or are influenced by politics (i.e. government departments).
What I would like to see are lots of entries on Wikipedia like:
[the carbon footprint of beef] [the carbon footprint of air travel] [the carbon footprint of a new house]
& etc.
Wikipedia is the right place for such information to be presented.
See more of my criticism here: http://www.brusselsblog.co.uk/is-wikipedia-too-credentialist/
Geoff Beacon
P.S. I do make a modest monthly contribution to the Wikimedia foundation.
On 09/10/13 06:49, Geoff Beacon wrote:
An authoritative and easy to used resource giving of the effect or our everyday activities is essential if voters are to know enough to influence politics.
I cant find any entries on Wikipedia to match this. To some extent I blame Wikipedia's over emphasis on peer review and official sources. The [Carbon footprint] entry is probably counter-productive as it implies that the quoted sources are more reliable than they are. I fear some of these sources are incorrect, hide their proprietary information or are influenced by politics (i.e. government departments).
What I would like to see are lots of entries on Wikipedia like:
[the carbon footprint of beef] [the carbon footprint of air travel] [the carbon footprint of a new house]
& etc.
I don't really understand where you are coming from with this. Your own website http://www.greenrationbook.org.uk/resources/ cites plenty of official, reliable sources which you could presumably cite when you write about these topics. On your blog, you complain about Wikipedians getting annoyed when you cite yourself as a secondary source, which seems fair enough -- why not just cite the primary sources directly?
-- Tim Starling
Hi Geoff, You want it, go ahead and do it. That is how it works. Cheers, Peter Southwood PS. What is the point you wish to make by saying you make a monthly contribution to WMF?
----- Original Message ----- From: "Geoff Beacon" geoffbeacon@sent.com To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 9:49 PM Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Carbon footprints on Wikipedia.
An authoritative and easy to used resource giving of the effect or our everyday activities is essential if voters are to know enough to influence politics.
I cant find any entries on Wikipedia to match this. To some extent I blame Wikipedia's over emphasis on peer review and official sources. The [Carbon footprint] entry is probably counter-productive as it implies that the quoted sources are more reliable than they are. I fear some of these sources are incorrect, hide their proprietary information or are influenced by politics (i.e. government departments).
What I would like to see are lots of entries on Wikipedia like:
[the carbon footprint of beef] [the carbon footprint of air travel] [the carbon footprint of a new house]
& etc.
Wikipedia is the right place for such information to be presented.
See more of my criticism here: http://www.brusselsblog.co.uk/is-wikipedia-too-credentialist/
Geoff Beacon
P.S. I do make a modest monthly contribution to the Wikimedia foundation.
-- Geoff Beacon geoffbeacon@sent.com
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org