The Wiki site shows a strong bias towards the certainty of Global warming. For instance even though the article states that scientists are more than 90% certain of the affect of climate change they give no consideration or credence to the other 10%. A review of this article leaves the reader believing that Global Warming is a fact. "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain that it is primarily caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.[3][4][5][6]"
NASA gives validity to the claim that greenhouse gas emissions are responsible for global warming on their site: The site is authored by a specific team within the government organization and validity is substantiated by the use of names of authors to the site. While it is not wise to believe everything the government tells you, there is also a preponderance of evidence that they do know what they are talking about.
Wayne Smith takes the opposite view of NASA, he does not believe that Greenhouse Gases are a problem and he's not afraid to say so. The website which presents Mr. Smith's claim is Politifact of Texas and they actually review and judge Mr. Smith's claim. The writers of the site, which are not named specifically, is that Mr. Smith's claim is incorrect and ridiculous. Further review of Mr. Smith's claims by a reader would be warranted.
With General Sanctions a committe, specified by the Wikipedia governing body, may limit, restrict, or remove comments, references, or claims by the general public to the specified article.
Remembering the El Nino of 1998 I was intrigued that some may think that global warming ended then. I have heard this statement made in media sources, but according to the link provided to the Wiki and The Weather Factory of PBS the El Nino of '98 is used as a comparative not a definitive mark. The Weather Factory site is authored and maintained by a reputable company with supporting documentation and accountability.
The Section on Natural Resources shows that the editors feel that there is some bias in the article and that they would like to see a more neutral approach, "The section's summary of extreme events is not consistent with the recent IPCC SREX report. The section states that in the future, there will be more intense droughts and floods. No caveats are given. By contrast, the SREX report is far more cautious in its projections of changes in droughts and floods." Is just one instance of this. (Wiki, 2013)
NewsandEventsGuy seems a bit more experience, but I'm still fairly overwhelmed by the whole content of the article. I would not rely much upon Wiki for coverage on any topic, especially something as serious as global warming. Enescot has not updated his personal page since January of 2013 which would make one question the relativity of his other information. The research and information on this topic is fluid and I would be concerned that the information is out of date. I would reiterate that I would use Wiki as a brainstorming, kicking off point, not as an ultimate resource.
My opinion of Wiki has not really changed, I would still utilize it in a classroom as I have considered before. I would use it as an example of how to examine resources, analyze content, and evaluate resources. I would find examples of both good and bad wiki information that was age appropriate for the class and examine it closely. It would be interesting to put a graphic organizer together that would also showcase other sites with information to support and contradict the wiki statements.
The Section on Natural Resources shows that the editors feel that there is some bias in the article and that they would like to see a more neutral approach, "The section's summary of extreme events is not consistent with the recent IPCC SREX report. The section states that in the future, there will be more intense droughts and floods. No caveats are given. By contrast, the SREX report is far more cautious in its projections of changes in droughts and floods." Is just one instance of this. (Wiki, 2013)
NewsandEventsGuy seems a bit more experience, but I'm still fairly overwhelmed by the whole content of the article. I would not rely much upon Wiki for coverage on any topic, especially something as serious as global warming. Enescot has not updated his personal page since January of 2013 which would make one question the relativity of his other information. The research and information on this topic is fluid and I would be concerned that the information is out of date. I would reiterate that I would use Wiki as a brainstorming, kicking off point, not as an ultimate resource.
My opinion of Wiki has not really changed, I would still utilize it in a classroom as I have considered before. I would use it as an example of how to examine resources, analyze content, and evaluate resources. I would find examples of both good and bad wiki information that was age appropriate for the class and examine it closely. It would be interesting to put a graphic organizer together that would also showcase other sites with information to support and contradict the wiki statements.
No comments:
Post a Comment