Comparing the Biofuel Articles here and in Wikipedia wasn't a good idea, was it? At least at the moment the Green Wikia's article is empty!
Accessability and Relevance to Average Reader
What about to write and edit short and well understanable introducing abtracts into the Wikipedia? One advantage is, that it there is been read from far more people and in that the ideas can be spread far more effective.
Ecological point of view
It is a good thing, looking on things from the ecoligic point of view. But, you know, this is not allways the total truth. The other is eg. the economic side. Sometimes it may be better not to choose the most ecoligical way in one life aspect and take the saved money at another place with more effect – you can spend every dollar only once. Look at the hybrid cars. Looking on fuel saving it seems to be a good choice, giving your old car away and buying a modern hybrid. Looking on the total environmental impact, the fuel consumption is only half of the truth. One big amount of environmental impact of a car is its production. This means, it may be better to drive a car a long time, than replacing it by a new – undoubted better – one.
You see, it is not allways as easy, to put the truth in tree simple sentences... ;-)
Looking forward to an inspiring discussion
Rolf Hofi 08:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Hofi, thanks for the catch; I changed the example to one that is more relevant.
- My personal view about your accessibility point is that people gravitate to communities and content that works for them, as both writers and readers. Some will use this wiki as a starting point, some will use it to find more information, some will prefer one style over another, some will come to this wiki and also be on five other green sites.
- You are right in this aspect. But... what do we produce here? Don't we produce the same again, what already exists anywhere else, only to have it here – for people, who already are interested in those themes. Maybe they feel well here and so are more motivated to participation. On the other hand – wouldn't it be also be worth while transporting the green ideas and knowledge to the 'average population'? Most of them will not know about Green Wiki, lots of them don't know Wikipedia at all. So, what's the best way to address them (1st question) and what is the best way to bring the knowledge of the most contributors together to the green themes (2nd question)? // Rolf 11:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- With respect to the ecological point of view, I completely agree with you. There is definitely a wider discussion on many, many green topics, hybrid cars being just one, organic foods being another. But like any wiki, the articles here evolve with participation. Writer A provides some information, Writer B provides more, Writer C provides still more, and the end result takes it all into account. So by all means please lend your voice to the mix where you can! Someone recently did add some info about negative aspects of hybrids. One thing that concerns me about green debates in general is that opposing views tend to demand fixes that are cheap, that have no impact whatsoever, and so on. In my view that is unrealistic; obviously new technologies take money to develop, and something like the hybrid is not the be-all, end-all solution. It is a step hopefully toward something better. It's taken centuries to degrade the planet to where it is today and it will take time and smarts to change that. At any rate, debate's a good thing! This might be a good topic to bring up over at the Village Pump. Best, Mollyh 18:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- Some time ago I found a table showing the costs for reducing C02 by investion on different technologies or projects (cars, house insulation, electric power production etc.). It was brought out from the German car manufacturing industry, so you should refer to it with care, but it maybe would be a entrance point for a discussion and collection of trustable data, but at the moment I don't know where to find it again. // Rolf Hofi 11:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Hofi: A valid point, but it is still an ecological point of view, just that one person's actions based on the same desire to be 'ecological' might be different to another's. If the person is just trying to save money, then that's neither green nor an ecological point of view, and has no place in a "Green Wiki". So Ideally the wiki would reflect all the different green points of view, but not others. The facts and opinions would all be there for people to make up their own minds. Yambub (talk) 01:19, January 22, 2015 (UTC)