*controversy alert* if you want to move the needle on the transition I wouldn't go into physical climate science, we need folks with good quant skills in energy finance, grid stuff, transportation, etc. Like, pick one of the sectors that emits GHGs and use your physics background to help it stop

Like, the damages from a middle emissions scenario, are very very bad for people, ecosystems, and the economy! If they don’t want to use the high value, use the middle one, which also requires us to get to zero emissions!

My doctrine:
Mitigate like we need 1.0°
Resilience like we’ll get 3.0°

Sorry, he probably didn’t say it leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2...

Yes please

There you have it: Two groups look at exactly the same Wikipedia content, one group sees right-wing bias and the other group sees left-wing bias :)

11/ It was kind of fun to see the ADL try to substantiate its claim of anti-Israel bias in Wikipedia by saying there have been "similar campaigns to erase Native American history." - with a link to Keeler's Slate article (www.adl.org/resources/pr...).

10/ "When information that contradicts these histories is added," Keeler continued, "some editors claim that new additions constitute “presentism,” or “cancel culture.”" slate.com/technology/2...

9/ In a 2022 Slate article titled " How Wikipedia Erases Indigenous History", Kyle Keeler complained that "Generally, U.S. history pages follow one strict interpretation of history written in the 1960s and ’70s, and most editors treat these matters as settled..."

8/ Efforts to encourage women to join the Wikipedia community have been going on since 2011 and have barely made a dent in the ratio of male to female editors, which is still around 5:1. The Phelps-era proposals to reform notability criteria failed: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...

7/ Unlike a university administration, the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't control the makeup of the community. The Wikipedia community is made up of volunteers - nobody hires or admits them.

6/ I'd say the @Wikimedia Foundation's culture is relatively progressive, but the English Wikipedia community is more politically diverse and more centrist overall. Editorial decisions are made by the Wikipedia community, not by the Foundation.

5/ Could it be that Wikipedia's has undergone some kind of ideological takeover in recent years? While the arrival of a coordinated group can temporarily skew an article or a handful of articles, the English Wikipedia community as a whole is extremely slow to change.

4/ Jarvis targeted one editor's statement that "Wikipedia is not here to pursue social justice" as particularly awful. But the community held its ground, refusing to host an article on Phelps until independent reliable sources wrote enough to meet Wikipedia standards en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...

3/ Wikipedia took enormous flak over that. "The site’s criteria for notability continue to devalue the achievements of people like Clarice Phelps. Fixing the representation problem will require radical changes to Wikipedia’s rules and user base." wrote Claire Jarvis: undark.org/2019/04/25/w...

2/ Remember the Clarice Phelps controversy? Phelps is a Black female scientist whose Wikipedia biography was repeatedly deleted because the Wikipedia community felt there wasn't enough coverage of her in independent reliable sources.

And en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_D...