Where are the sun spots?

[MikePA]

Do you really know anything about Wikipedia?

I fully understand how Wikipedia works. I also understand the reference was utterly irrelevant to this thread.

 

[SPYDERLK]

I fully understand how Wikipedia works.

[citation needed]

larry

 

[DocHeb]

To give you some idea, the Wiki article on the ozone hole is the result of 25,000 public corrections since just 2002. The article you see has been honed that many times to acheive a result that is palatable to all the interested parties.

Palatable does not mean it is true.

Why, with 24,999 prior public corrections needed, would you suppose that the current version is correct?

My two college kids are not allowed to use any Wiki article as a reference in their papers for a reason.

 

[MikePA]

[citation needed]

larry

Not sure why you quoted me.

 

[Soundguy]

Maybee he was alluding to your previous statement about the .. uh.. reliability of all things that come from wiki?

In a pinch.. they are generally ok for some things.. or general knowledge.. but I'd sure hate to have to rely on them for anything important..

soundguy

 

[alchemysa]

[citation needed]

larry

Thats funny. And MikePA's response was revealing.

 

[MikePA]

Thats funny. And MikePA's response was revealing.

Why would I [quote a citation], I wasn't the one quoting Wikipedia, you were. That's as revealing as you not responding to jdbower's post. Revealing, but not unexpected.

 

[alchemysa]

Palatable does not mean it is true.

Why, with 24,999 prior public corrections needed, would you suppose that the current version is correct?

My two college kids are not allowed to use any Wiki article as a reference in their papers for a reason.

I could have put it another way. I could have said it had 25,000 revisions or refinements. All the rough edges have been knocked off. Any contentious statements have proof or references (citations) to support them. Hopefully its about as true as anything you'll find on the net.

Schools don't like kids relying on Wiki because its too **** easy. They want the kids to do some research and use their brains to sort the wheat from the chaff. They don't want to receive 30 identical papers.

But what are the better alternatives to Wiki? A 10 year old encyclopedia? A website put together by a half dozen guys with an agenda? A website constructed by someone who is trying to sell you something?

(edit. I have a very keen interest in a particular science/health topic. I've studied it very closely for 6 years. I'm not entirely happy with the Wiki article about that particular subject, but I would describe it as 'correct but inadequate' rather than 'wrong'. It could say a lot more but it would begin to delve into areas where less proof is available. I think this is disappointing but I understand why that is so. Wiki isn't a forum for speculation.


(Ooops.... Another edit. I just realised I made a big mistake in the figure above. It should have been 500 corrections since 2002, not 25,000. I thought it said there was 500 pages of 50 corrections per page.

 

[alchemysa]

(Ooops.... Another edit. I just realised I made a big mistake in the figure above. It should have been 500 corrections since 2002, not 25,000. I thought it said there was 500 pages of 50 corrections per page.

Hmmmm. I still havent got this correct. It may have been more like 2500 corrections since 2002. Its hard to work out. Anyway its a lot. And some topics get way more revisions. 'Global Warming' gets about 500 on a busy month. Of course many are just simple punctuation corrections. Barack Obamas' got 500 in 20 days.

Often I find the Discussion and History tabs a heck of a lot more interesting than the articles.

For those who are interested, or those who dismiss Wikipedia so quickly, they may like to peruse this..

Wikipedia:About - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (CONTENT CRITERIA)

"This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments."

It ain't perfect but its one of the great successes of the net IMO.

 

[MicroPilot]

So has the ozone hole been "fixed" because of the CFC ban?

 

[SPYDERLK]

So has the ozone hole been "fixed" because of the CFC ban?

The simple answer is that there is evidence that it is on the mend. You will need to read the link tho, because the influences to the hole are convoluted. There is no doubt that chlorine and bromine are contributors, but then so are variables such as especially cold temperature and atmospheric flow patterns. The hole size should tend to vary a bit, but with a long term downward trend as Cl slowly leaves the atmosphere.
larry

 

[alchemysa]

So has the ozone hole been "fixed" because of the CFC ban?

I believe the answer is 'No but it hasn't got worse'. A distinct drop in the graph has been halted but It could take 25 years to get 'fixed', as some CFC's are still being illegally and accidently released.

Some people will disagree but in my opinion it was an essential course of action. It was a great display of common sense and co-operation. The consequences of doing nothing were potentially very bad.