[Coral-List] The public, wikipedia, holocene temperatures

[Ulf Erlingsson]

Good point, Wikipedia is the #1 stop for most nowadays, and the expert who doesn't help edit Wikipedia on his topic can (often) only blame himself if people get misinformed. There is just one exception that I have found, but it doesn't concern the natural sciences: There is clearly a politicly motivated bias in articles relating to Venezuela, kept in place by an organized effort who block any attempt to correct the propaganda. Hence, Wikipedia is vulnerable to deliberate misinformation. The "good guys" need to be as organized and deliberate as those who have an interest in misinforming. Relying on voluntary editors against an organized group intent on misinforming is not going to cut it.

Ulf Erlingsson

On 2014-05-28, at 10:47, David Obura wrote:

> 
> Hi Ian, 
> 
> This is a great post Ian ... in searching for information on general marine science/conservation in the last few years I've also noticed how often Wikipedia is the first port of call for search engines. I've also noticed that there are some incredibly informative pages set up by very credible and professional groups - these obviously go through the same peer process as others, but at least it is balanced heavily by good expertise, and survive any mangling that may happen from 'less informed' contributors.
> 
> Along with social media-ing, perhaps we should also be writing wikipedia pages on the topics closest to our professions, and following the process so that they survive the edits that will no doubt be imposed over time.
> 
> regards, David