|
Post by eledille on May 18, 2012 19:22:50 GMT 9.5
Hello BNC people, I think there is a need to improve Wikipedia articles concerning nuclear power, radiation, global warming, and the various energy sources. I believe that Wikipedia is a very important source of information - the page "Nuclear power" got 162k hits in March 2012 (http://stats.grok.se/). That's an average of more than 5000 hits per day. Many of these articles need improvement. The list of problems include being opinionated against nuclear, not mentioning nuclear as an option where appropriate, stating dubious claims as though they were accepted facts, backing claims up with references to highly controversial articles by known anti-nuke authors, and tagging facts as controversial or unsubstantiated. The facts favour nuclear power and they can be substantiated, so Wikipedia ought to be a great tool to get the message out. But the message currently conveyed by Wikipedia is closer to "Wind is clean and plentiful, nuclear is controversial, expensive and unsustainable". I suggest using this thread to coordinate an effort to identify and correct errors and omissions in the relevant Wikipedia articles. Some examples: Final sentence in first paragraph of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_mitigation#Renewable_energyen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor is tagged as being of disputed neutrality. See the talk page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Breeder_reactor#Dubious_tag_in_introFourth paragraph of intro of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_powerFirst paragraph of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power#Variability_and_intermittency
|
|
|
Post by Northern guest on May 21, 2012 12:05:39 GMT 9.5
Seconded very much. Many if not all of the nuclear power related articles of Wikipedia have a strong anti-nuclear bias. Wikipedia is the place where people of the street will primarily be directed and be drawn to, not a site like BNC, informative as it might be! I reckon the antis have seized the site while us reasonable people have been sleeping. This must end. The trouble is, a single user has about 0% possibility of successfully reverting any articles back to sanity. The trouble is that far from being an "open encyclopaedia" it fashions itself, Wikipedia actually has got a curious editing hierarchy rank that one needs to be able to penetrate first, before any of the necessary changes have a slightest chance to "stick".
|
|
|
Post by eledille on May 22, 2012 2:31:40 GMT 9.5
Northern guest: And it's not just the articles about nuclear power, it's often even worse where nuclear is mentioned under a different title, like the Low-carbon Power article. Basically every single article on global warming and low carbon energy is a rat's nest of anti-nuke and naive pro-renewables propaganda. I think we can make our edits stick as long as we can back them up with good references, but digging up good references is a lot of work. At least we should be able to balance it somewhat. Wikipedias rules favour facts and neutrality. Even if I have 0 chance of reverting wikipedia back to sanity, I'm going to try. My fix in the subsection on the Sovacool life cycle study survey in the "Low-carbon power" article has survived for one whole day so far ;D I'm going to fix this one today: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-carbon_power#Nuclear_powerThere - deleted that rant by Amory Lovins. Slightly better, but more effort is needed. MODERATOR Great work! You will find lots of information/research backed by peer-review on our main blog site www.bravenewclimate.com which could be useful for de-bunking the Wikipedia myths. BNC is also developing another website called "KnowMoreFearLess" aimed at countering the misinformation promulgated into the community. If you would like to help with this project, and maybe get some help with yours you coulld post a message on this forum at bravenewclimate.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=gendis4&action=display&thread=75
|
|
|
Post by eledille on May 22, 2012 20:18:16 GMT 9.5
|
|