User talk:Clayoquot/Wikipedia and climate change

My first comment (drum roll?): I sympathize.

However, I think you're running right into WP:ADVOCATE (as in "not"). Which is not intended to discourage you on this, but that is what you're likely to run into. So: how do you deal with that?

One approach might be to just grab the stick (a burning stick?? !) and make a case that in this case WP should advocate. But such a case would also have to explain why we don't make exceptions for other popular or important issues, and I (for one) would want an extremely strong case on that.

Another approach: avoid any advocacy (ie., "messages [that] move people") or apparent partisanship, and focus on: this topic is so critically important that we want the very best coverage we can produce. That is where I think a strong pitch could be made to get more editors.

But simply increasing the number of editors is not likely to do more than "more of the same". I think we should also look into how key articles could be improved, and even review what kind of articles are needed and what their scope should be. (Rather like what we're doing now at Global warming.) It would also be good to arrange some way where experts (which really should not fritter away their expertise on direct sentence-level editing) could provide reviews of how well various articles cover their topic, and how well they they present the mainstream scientific view. It might also be good to have experts on communication (not necessarily the hard-science experts!) review how well the content is being communicated to various audiences, including those readers of a "skeptical" viewpoint.

Something I strongly recommend for your study: George Lakoff's "Why it Matters How We Frame the Environment", available here. Note especially his comments on Liberals' "Enlightenment" viewpoint. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your very thoughtful comments! Lots to think about here, and I mostly agree with what you're saying. Will write a more detailed response when I have time. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

1) How can we get experienced and new Wikipedians to volunteer to improve articles on climate change?

I like recruiting bilingual international students, researchers, and visiting Faculty to participate in translating Wikipedia articles into their native language(s). Everyone knows SOME scientist working in or interested in climate-related issues, so networking with skilled writers of targeted knowledge is my recommendation.
Correlated projects may involve science and engineering (e.g. solar manufacturing) but not specifically climate science. Recruiting those persons to work on industry-related articles would make their networking with climate-interested science researchers available to us. MaynardClark (talk) 06:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

2) What would it take to get one or more Wikipedian in Residence programs started up with a focus on climate change? I honestly don't think it would be difficult to get charitable foundations or corporations to provide arms-length funding if an educational organization is willing to manage the program.

Smithsonian Institution
American Academy of Arts and Sciences (Harvard Square, Cambridge, Massachusetts, a.k.a. Amacad.org.
NASEM

MaynardClark (talk) 06:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Add topic