Difference between revisions of "Talk:RC Wiki"

From RCwiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(By Topic)
(add response from Gavin)
 
(5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 31: Line 31:
  
 
: I could see a kind of meta-listing on issues, linking to individual debunks on the other sites. That could be useful, but there would be some work involved... [[User:Admin|Admin]] 10:38, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
 
: I could see a kind of meta-listing on issues, linking to individual debunks on the other sites. That could be useful, but there would be some work involved... [[User:Admin|Admin]] 10:38, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
:: --[[User:Greenfyre|Greenfyre]] 15:13, 12 August 2008 (EDT) Let me putter away at it in the background and we can promote it when it has enough substance to be useful
 +
 +
== Papers and/or media articles? Multiple authors? ==
 +
 +
Might be worth a quick sanity check on what '''RCWiki''' intends to cover: only articles in blogs/media? Or also high-profile junk-science papers?  And, separately, whether we have just one page per author, or a page for each combination of authors that publishes?
 +
 +
The case in point is the latest travesty from [[John McLean, C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter|McLean, de Freitas and Carter]].
 +
 +
As far as I can see this is the first time we've:
 +
* included a journal-published (and apparently peer reviewed) paper as an article, with list of rebuttals; and
 +
* created a page for a combination of authors.
 +
 +
(I certainly haven't checked the whole wiki; I could easily be wrong on one or both of those.)
 +
 +
'''Peer reviewed (or journal-published) papers'''
 +
It seems to me that RCWiki could serve a useful function by acting as a guide to obviously junk-science papers (and their rebuttals) as well as the current function of covering articles in the media, given that in the denialosphere there's often then a whole series of articles/blog posts about these junk-science papers, and the rebuttals are really the same for all.  However, it is a change of scope, I think, and we need to ''consciously decide to make that change''.
 +
 +
'''Pages for combinations of authors'''
 +
This one I'm less sure of.  I'm not definitely opposed, as it's probably something people would look for, and find more easily if there were such pages. However, for one thing, it could get pretty messy if we then have a whole heap of combinations of authors in the alphabetical list.  Perhaps one (partial) solution might be a modification of that list: making combinations be secondary list elements, like this:
 +
 +
*[[Ahmed Boucenna|Boucenna, Ahmed]]
 +
*[[Robert Carter|Carter, Robert]]
 +
** see also [[John McLean, C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter | McLean, John, C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter]]
 +
*[[Phil Chapman | Chapman, Phil]]
 +
 +
...
 +
 +
*[[Joe D’Aleo | D’Aleo, Joe]]
 +
*[[Chris de Freitas|de Freitas, Chris]]
 +
** see also [[John McLean, C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter | McLean, John, C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter]]
 +
*[[Frank Devine | Devine, Frank]]
 +
 +
...
 +
 +
*[[John McLean | McLean, John]]
 +
** see also [[John McLean, C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter | McLean, John, C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter]]
 +
*[[Patrick Michaels | Michaels, Patrick]]
 +
 +
etc.
 +
 +
Alternatively, we could stick to one page per author; however that would mean either entering and maintaining multiple copies of the same content on each author page, or centralising it into what's called a "template" in MediaWiki, which is then a small fragment of a page which can be included into each author's page, and updated in just one place.
 +
 +
For now I've added a section at the bottom of each individual author page, with a link to the combined page.
 +
 +
Thoughts?
 +
 +
[[User:Mattandrews|Mattandrews]] 06:37, 29 July 2009 (CDT)
 +
 +
Response from Gavin:
 +
<blockquote>The heuristic I was working with was that we should avoid scientific
 +
papers that actually have some degree of scientific interest (such as the
 +
Christy and Spencer papers, or the Iris effect), but that clear breaches
 +
of the peer review process (McLean et al, Chillingar etc) are fair game.</blockquote>
 +
 +
<blockquote>As for multi-author pages, that could get messy. I'd prefer the discussion
 +
of particular papers to be attached to the lead (or most prominent)
 +
author, with links from the pages of any other authors to the central
 +
discussion. So in the McLean case, I would have put everything on the
 +
McLean page, and linked to from the Carter page.</blockquote>
 +
 +
I'll make those changes re the McLean et al paper.
 +
[[User:Mattandrews|Mattandrews]] 09:24, 29 July 2009 (CDT)

Latest revision as of 14:24, 29 July 2009

Source Country

I wonder how useful the source country section is? It is not a criteria I have ever used to look for material, but maybe others do.

agreed. We could downplay this category. Initially I thought it would be interesting to see the differences in style/argument among the different source countries, but this is probably not very useful. Admin 10:17, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

It also begs the question about what catagories are useful? How likely is someone to be searching by the name of the newspaper? and is the search function sufficient?

I think by source newspaper is useful since there is definitely a connection between things that the WSJ or the Australian publish Admin 10:17, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

I do not pose the question to be difficult, but more with an eye to the fact that catagorization takes time, particularly as they add a layer of decision making re: conventions (eg is Swindle 'Television' or 'Documentary' or both?}

television is the better category - documentary not so much. Admin 10:17, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

If a catagory is used to help people find a resource quicker, then by all means - but is it used? --Greenfyre 23:38, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

By Topic

Lack of clarity on my part again, sorry. I am most definitely not suggesting creating something new to replace Cory, realclimate, UCS, skeptical science etc, not at all.

Rather I am suggesting that the sublinks within these sites be organized by issue here as well, reasoning:

i) in many instances specific myths show up and it would be nice to have a single link (ie here at the wiki) that links to all of relevant sections. Thus a page on the 70s cooling myth would not discuss the myth, but link to the relevant section at Grist, realclimate, etc.

ii) An issues based index makes it much easier for site users to use the wiki to debunk myths they encounter in espace. Thus the lay user could use the site to debunk everything from newspaper articles like Bolt and Solomon to blogs where they find them; things that none of the serious commentators are ever going to bother with, but they have an impact nonetheless.

iii) not all of the collections are kept up to date. A wiki based issues page makes it easy to throw new work into the mix

iv) it is something I am doing anyway (collecting the links by topic) so it is a relatively simple matter to do it here rather than on my machine. --Greenfyre 23:38, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

I could see a kind of meta-listing on issues, linking to individual debunks on the other sites. That could be useful, but there would be some work involved... Admin 10:38, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
--Greenfyre 15:13, 12 August 2008 (EDT) Let me putter away at it in the background and we can promote it when it has enough substance to be useful

Papers and/or media articles? Multiple authors?

Might be worth a quick sanity check on what RCWiki intends to cover: only articles in blogs/media? Or also high-profile junk-science papers? And, separately, whether we have just one page per author, or a page for each combination of authors that publishes?

The case in point is the latest travesty from McLean, de Freitas and Carter.

As far as I can see this is the first time we've:

  • included a journal-published (and apparently peer reviewed) paper as an article, with list of rebuttals; and
  • created a page for a combination of authors.

(I certainly haven't checked the whole wiki; I could easily be wrong on one or both of those.)

Peer reviewed (or journal-published) papers It seems to me that RCWiki could serve a useful function by acting as a guide to obviously junk-science papers (and their rebuttals) as well as the current function of covering articles in the media, given that in the denialosphere there's often then a whole series of articles/blog posts about these junk-science papers, and the rebuttals are really the same for all. However, it is a change of scope, I think, and we need to consciously decide to make that change.

Pages for combinations of authors This one I'm less sure of. I'm not definitely opposed, as it's probably something people would look for, and find more easily if there were such pages. However, for one thing, it could get pretty messy if we then have a whole heap of combinations of authors in the alphabetical list. Perhaps one (partial) solution might be a modification of that list: making combinations be secondary list elements, like this:

...

...

etc.

Alternatively, we could stick to one page per author; however that would mean either entering and maintaining multiple copies of the same content on each author page, or centralising it into what's called a "template" in MediaWiki, which is then a small fragment of a page which can be included into each author's page, and updated in just one place.

For now I've added a section at the bottom of each individual author page, with a link to the combined page.

Thoughts?

Mattandrews 06:37, 29 July 2009 (CDT)

Response from Gavin:

The heuristic I was working with was that we should avoid scientific

papers that actually have some degree of scientific interest (such as the Christy and Spencer papers, or the Iris effect), but that clear breaches

of the peer review process (McLean et al, Chillingar etc) are fair game.
As for multi-author pages, that could get messy. I'd prefer the discussion

of particular papers to be attached to the lead (or most prominent) author, with links from the pages of any other authors to the central discussion. So in the McLean case, I would have put everything on the

McLean page, and linked to from the Carter page.

I'll make those changes re the McLean et al paper. Mattandrews 09:24, 29 July 2009 (CDT)