User talk:MalcolmMcDonald/Improvement Chart

Improvement Chart

Today's copy of the "Improvement Chart". Please add your name to the relevant categories, perhaps with a brief description of exactly what concerns you. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 09:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Which change?	Editors views and wish for change
Include politics of GW as well as science	MalcolmMcDonald - "politics" is what brings most readers. No evidence of dissent (& no mention of newspaper concerns) looks like censorship or POV. The IPCC itself and it's AR4 report (referenced 26 times?) are hugely political. Martin Hogbin - politics is an essential part of this national and global issue. Spoonkymonkey, zero-involvement visitor, 1250 article edits - per MM. HistorianofScience - articles should first and foremost inform the reader about the science, politics secondarily. dave souza, talk covered in Politics of global warming, improve coverage and ensure summary style statement in main global warming science article is suitable, a couple of sentences should suffice.
Section on "Debate and skepticism" should reflect the views of skeptics	Martin Hogbin - currently, the views of skeptics are not represented properly anywhere in the article. MalcolmMcDonald - rename section "Dissent", start it with names of prominent sceptics and fairly represent their views. Spoonkymonkey, zero-involvement visitor, 1250 article edits - per MM, article seeks to hide the fact the debate exists at all. HistorianofScience - I am a mild sceptic who would like to learn more about what the sceptical views are, and more important why the sceptics hold these view. It is impossible to get any sense of this from the current articles. dave souza, talk the range of views in Scientific opinion on climate change should include those who think it's worse than IPCC reports indicate, as well as various minority views such as AGW existing but not being statistically significant etc., Global warming controversy should include extreme fringe scientific views and anti-scientific denialist views, ensure summary style statement in main global warming science article briefly mentions that there is a range of views, indicating broad outline but not going into any detail.
Deletion and archiving of discussions makes cooperative editing and improvement extremely difficult	Martin Hogbin - rapid deletion and archiving of discussions from the talk page make discussion of many important and relevant issues impossible. 83.203.210.23 - no serious person would even bother for two minutes trying to help improve the article if DISCUSSION ITSELF is wildly censored. MalcolmMcDonald - while there is a little trolling and spam, the counter-measures cause much harm to policy HistorianofScience - the closing of discussions is certainly too abrupt. I suffered from this myself. dave souza, talk deletion and archiving in accordance with WP:TALK when offtopic forum type threads get at all out of hand, keep talk pages focussed on specific proposals for article improvement backed up by sources.
Article reads like an advertisement	83.203.210.23 - is requested to provide examples by Awickert (talk) Martin Hogbin - three examples presented above read like "using only the finest ingredients"' and "9 out of 10 cats prefer it" and "the value of your investment may go down as well as up". Spoonkymonkey, zero-involvement visitor, 1250 article edits - agree per IP 83.203 & MH. HistorianofScience - I wasn't sure about this one but ~~Malcolm~~ Martin's examples above convinced me.
Article fails to be informative	MalcolmMcDonald - one side of the much thornier evolution debate was fully documented at TalkOrigins by 2006. Making WP (better software & 1000 times more helpers) truly informative and nearly "complete" can't be hard. Martin Hogbin Spoonkymonkey, zero-involvement visitor, 1250 article edits - obviously unfair to skeptics. HistorianofScience - per my remarks above.
Add Key-words and links to aid navigation	MalcolmMcDonald - readers expect to search for key-words such as "Amazon" and "Antarctic". Ditto the names of prominent skeptics, eg Monckton on tour of Australia Jan/Feb 2010 with credible sounding objections to "the science". Spoonkymonkey, zero-involvement visitor, 1250 article edits - what possible objection?
Prevalence of borderline BLP makes articles appear POV	(put your name here, with maximum 2 lines of examples)
No major changes needed. No popular concerns, only science. No "politics", broadly construed.	There's not much wrong with the article as it stands now since it describes the viewpoints of knowledgeable people in the field as published in peer-reviewed documents. Newspaper reports are almost never helpful. No harm comes from information being a month or even six behind the state of public debate. (Add your name here, with caveats if you have them).

OK by me Chart

MASTER copy of the "OK by me Chart". Please add your name to the relevant categories, perhaps with a brief description of why and what you'd defend. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 09:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Which change?	Editors disagree with this invitation to change
Include politics of GW as well as science	dave souza, talk covered in Politics of global warming, improve coverage and ensure summary style statement in main global warming science article is suitable, a couple of sentences should suffice.
Section on "Debate and skepticism" should reflect the views of skeptics	dave souza, talk the range of views in Scientific opinion on climate change should include those who think it's worse than IPCC reports indicate, as well as various minority views such as AGW existing but not being statistically significant etc., Global warming controversy should include extreme fringe scientific views and anti-scientific denialist views, ensure summary style statement in main global warming science article briefly mentions that there is a range of views, indicating broad outline but not going into any detail.
Deletion and archiving of discussions makes cooperative editing and improvement extremely difficult	dave souza, talk deletion and archiving in accordance with WP:TALK when offtopic forum type threads get at all out of hand, keep talk pages focussed on specific proposals for article improvement backed up by sources.
Article reads like an advertisement
Article fails to be informative
Add Key-words and links to aid navigation
Prevalence of borderline BLP makes articles appear POV	(put your name here, with maximum 2 lines of examples)
No major changes needed. No popular concerns, only science. No "politics", broadly construed.	There's not much wrong with the article as it stands now since it describes the viewpoints of knowledgeable people in the field as published in peer-reviewed documents. Newspaper reports are almost never helpful. No harm comes from information being a month or even six behind the state of public debate. (Add your name here, with caveats if you have them).