User talk:Ryderesident

Welcome

Hello, Ryderesident, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Bidgee (talk) 10:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Directories and indexes Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Editing the Infobox on 2019-2010 Australia Bushfire Season

Hi Rangasyd. Thanks for your edits. I'm sorry for my inexperience with editing - trying to not break the page and all the work. I'm trying to work out how to add the fact-checking information, without breaking the infobox. I can add more links to verify the fact-checking information, as there's also been analysis by Queensland University and there's more international references that could be added. Would that help? I'm wondering whether re-ordering the causes by contribution, and then adding the fact-checking would balance this. However, the original alphabetic ordering was adding to the misinformation concern. Can you suggest an alternative that strikes a balance please? OK, I think I've got this in the right place. Please feel comfortable to tell me the ways of doing things as I'm very much still learning this.

Adding on 6/2/2020 - I can see the changes have been backed out, and I'd still like to discuss options as I think arson has been contentious and in some cases deliberate misinformation by bots on social media. The numbers reported both accident and arson are very low percentages that are not significantly different from their normally observed percentages. I was wondering if putting the percentages next to the existing bullet points would correctly portray the relative info, or sorting the list based on percentages. But the Infobox is so small, it seemed better to just list the significant ones. There are references I can pull up in relation to the numbers or the research. Is this the next step please. Do I do this here?

Reference 1 gives the count for 8 November until 6 January from the NSW Police to specifically correct the misinformation concerning causes. Reference 2 is the findings of a reputable fact-checking website, snopes Reference 3 is the statistics published for causes in 2008. Deliberately lit count is 13% in both reference 1 and reference 3 References 4 and 5 discuss the fact-checking and research into misinformation.

1. https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/news/news_article?sq_content_src=%2BdXJsPWh0dHBzJTNBJTJGJTJGZWJpenByZC5wb2xpY2UubnN3Lmdvdi5hdSUyRm1lZGlhJTJGODIyNjQuaHRtbCZhbGw9MQ%3D%3D&fbclid=IwAR18u68-RAX_vfg5G2_vK0x8vWa94yUN61HXK_6QBfF7P0yWD8VlonAuQAM 2. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/australia-arrested-bushfires/ 3. https://aic.gov.au/publications/bfab/bfab059 4. https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/online-fact-checkers-confront-deluge-of-bushfire-misinformation-20200108-p53pwx.html 5. https://www.zdnet.com/article/twitter-bots-and-trolls-promote-conspiracy-theories-about-australian-bushfires/

Are these references substantial enough for the concern please? Ryderesident (talk) 11:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ryderesident (talk) 11:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editing the popular names on 2019-2010 Australia Bushfire Season

Hi Rangasyd. The fires have been going since September, as mentioned in the body of the page and there are references there. Also, the length of the fire season was warned by the Garnaut report and by the group of senior Fire services chiefs, also referenced in the page. Plus there are other popular names that existed before the recently proposed Black Summer. What is the best way of modifying the text. I actually think the word season should be re-considered in the title due to start and length of the episodes, however, I don't have the experience to suggest that adjustment. So, I was just trying to either add the variety of names, or take the popular name topic out of the top section and instead put what is unique about these bushfires and not controversial. Can you suggest an alternative that strikes a balance please?

Adding on 06/02/2020 - I can see the change has been backed out and also clause about the popular name has also been taken out of the top section. I think this is a suitable result - as none of the popular names are universally popular, they each are popular in different groups. So all out or all in seems ok to me, and I think the comments about the references supplied make sense - that it's more journalistic use rather than universal use. I think the clause that was most recently added is suitable as it helps address the possible confusion that the bushfires were only in our Summer, by clarifying the starting time. In short, I appreciate whoever worked on resolving the concerns. Ryderesident (talk) 11:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]