[Wikimedia-l] Carbon footprints on Wikipedia.

[Tim Starling]

Please either turn off digests and reply to the individual list mails,
or use the NNTP interface at gmane.org, so that your Subject and
References headers will be correct and threading will work.

On 09/10/13 20:48, Geoff Beacon wrote:
> The work of Adrian Mitchell that I used was in a report to the UK
> Department of Food and Rural Affairs. I find it now hard to find. I
> think that is because it is politically inconvenient.  The point
> about this work, as far as this discussion is concerned, is that it
> was not peer reviewed but a report to a government department. In
> my view it is clearly an important piece of work but I fear it
> would be rejected because it was not peer reviewed. See the
> moderator's comment mentioned in my BrusselsBlog piece "I can see
> only one reason for citing a non-peer reviewed article: ego-spam."
> (That wasn't actually directed at me.)

Wikipedia doesn't have moderators. It does have POV pushers, which are
a different thing. [[WP:V]] recommends, but does not require, peer
review for sources.

> I have just noticed that almost a year ago a prospective entry was
> put in the talk section of Wilipedia's [beef] article. It suggests
> a new section [Environmental impacts of beef] and has important
> information in it. This has not made its way into the main article.
> It should have despite any reservations. To only include absolutely
> polished information just gives and advantage to those with the
> resources to polish and possibly dubious motives.

It's definitely a good idea to polish your text, especially if you are
writing about a controversial topic. Note that text doesn't just "make
its way" from the talk page to the article, an ordinary editor (like
you) has to put it there.

> There is important information that should be on Wikipedia that is
> missing. I'm pleased to say that my shortened section on the
> Beddington Zero Energy Development [BedZED] hasn't yet been
> removed. It says "Embodied Carbon: Large. 67.5 tonnes CO2e for a
> 100 square metre flat." (OK. Perhaps I should have dug out the
> non-peer reviewed reference that gives this figure which was done
> by one of the project sponsors.)
> 
> If it stays perhaps I will add a section to [Beef], following the
> note in the talk section. "The carbon footprint of beef: Very
> large. Between 12 and 35kg of CO2e are produced for every 1 kg of
> beef consumed"
> 
> What do you think?

I think "very large" is too vague, it needs to be compared to
something. Also, if you are concerned that 100 year GWP underestimates
the impact of beef production, and want to use the 20 year GWP, then
the obvious solution is to quote both. NPOV policy favours expansion
over replacement.

-- Tim Starling