Talk:Climate communication

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 September 2021 and 7 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sregor4, Upuslay. Peer reviewers: Asircar.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 January 2022 and 6 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Owen.douth.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The short description and definition
I wonder if these could be improved but I cannot think how to do so.

The short description is now "communication practice focused on climate change to a public". Could it be made more everyday language?

The first 2 sentences say the subject is about the "effects" or "impact". But is it also about the causes and solutions?

Chidgk1 (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So I am new to this field, so am just capturing what I learn as I learn it. The field is very heavily focused, as far as I can tell, on evaluating the impact of communication about climate change (in all its dimensions), on persuading a public to either accept Climate Change as a reality or to take action (or in the case of minsiformation, evaluating how that information spreads, etc). So its about the effectiveness of the communication tactics, and understanding, through communication theory and experimental tests, how audience opinion can be changed over time time. Sadads (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * You may want to read through Climate crisis and Warming stripes and Climate emergency declaration for more more sources about climate communication.
 * Separately: I generally suggest you be careful in this article, not to delve deeply into explaining the substantive science, and focus on the communication. The science discussion is already duplicated in depth in too many overlapping articles around Wikipedia, making it harder to keep all of them updated. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * For sure, I am trying to integrate the article as much as possible into the existing topics -- its more of a front door into a lot of the various sub "climate change" in articles in some respects, and a documentation of the field rather than as you say the science. I am deeply familiar with those articles :) Sadads (talk) 20:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing
I notice that inline citations—which are strongly advised on Wikipedia articles in general—are omitted at several places in this article. One important example is the statement in the present version that the Heartland Institute introduces misinformation; such statements should definitely be inline-sourced. —RCraig09 (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * for sure. In general that specific is not a debated statement (see the main article for the org: Heartland Institute), so I was capturing it as I was listening to a lecture in the online class -- in general this is common knowledge. Also, as a general principle: I have been editing longer than you have, and been principle author on thousands of articles -- being "reminded" of first principles about Wikipedia here kindof... feels like you are talking down to me?  I know that was not your intent, but its also important to know who your audience is when you make statements like this. Instead, its better to place something like a WP:Citation needed statement on it. Hope you are having a happy day! Sadads (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Editing "Climate communication" for a course
I am working on this article for a course, and I plan to make two improvements to the page. First, I hope to reorganize the layout of this article as below, and then to adjust the lead section to follow this structure and briefly introduce the contents of the article. Second, I plan to expand the history section and add a new section to this article called "Primary Goals of Climate Communication," of which there are two. If possible, I would really appreciate some feedback on this before proceeding.

I. History II. Primary Goals of Climate Communication a. Increasing Understanding and Perception i. Health(?) ii. Popular Culture (?) b. Producing Engagement and Action III. Major Issues a. Barriers to Understanding i. Climate Literacy ii. Audience Segmentation (?) iii. Changing Rhetoric (?) iv. Media Coverage (?) f. Nonresponse IV. Effective Climate Communication a. Guides and Frameworks b. Importance of Storytelling c. Knowing the Audience (?) V. Relevant Organizations

Upuslay (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Upuslay


 * I have just made additions to the History Section and added the "Primary goals of climate communication" section. I did not complete the proposed changes above because I didn't receive feedback, and now I would like to hear from others on how to better integrate the balance of the article into my additions and vice versa. Thanks! Upuslay (talk) 04:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Upuslay


 * Just to add on to that, I would really like to collaborate with the other editors on this page in order to contribute something meaningful that betters this article. Thanks again! Upuslay (talk) 04:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Upuslay


 * I've just read your note on my User Talk page. New editors are generally welcome, but normally it's best to begin with smaller, incremental edits with detailed edit comments, rather than wholesale revision of an existing article. For example, your adding an 11,880-byte edit (14 Nov) makes it extremely difficult for other editors to review what you have done. Presumably the state of articles reflects some degree of consensus, though many articles do fall into disrepair, staleness or disorganization. This particular article hasn't been my focus so I don't anticipate being able to review your massive changes in any detail.
 * Importantly, each morsel of an article's content should be backed by a reliable source; we can't simply write what our individual personal understanding of a subject is. The lead (intro) follows from and briefly summarizes the important content of the article; it's backwards to write a rambling lead and then try to back it up with content. Minor formal suggestion: use paragraph breaks (two hard returns) to show organization within the sections and make them more readable.
 * More generally, I suggest you review the many links posted on my User Talk page: "Welcome" templates, Wikipedia principles, Wikipedia key policies and guidelines. There's a lot to learn. — RCraig09 (talk) 04:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you for your feedback and your work on the lead. I see how your changes make the lead easier to read. The lead was something I was unsure of how to precisely better in order to reflect the changes I had already written, so I appreciate that. I would also like to reassure you that I researched my contributions pretty thoroughly and did my best to truly "add" something to this article. I will be sure to look at your resources if I choose to edit continue to edit Wikipedia even after my assignment is completed. Thank you again! Upuslay (talk) 01:49, 4 December 2021 (UTC)Upuslay

Wiki Education assignment: Writ 2 - Academic Writing
— Assignment last updated by Icecream209 (talk) 07:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)