Hello Frisch1. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things
you have written about in the article
Jennifer L. Canty, you may have a
conflict of interest, or close connection to the subject.
All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.
If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:
Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. noq ( talk) 17:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the feedback. There is a close connection between the subject and myself. I was trying to follow guidelines by referncing articles and publications with the specific facts posted in question.
As to the notability, understood. She was the founder of a company that was acquired by a much larger company, which is particularly unusual for a woman-owned company in the United States. In addition, she has been cited by major media outlets dozens of times.
Please let me know if you don't feel that would qualify. I would have written more, but as a former journalist, I was trying to keep it to just the facts with specific outside references (Inc Magazine and The Post).
Frisch1 ( talk) 20:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)Frisch1
Before you make any more edits to (especially) locations in the PRC, please do not remove fields (e.g. humidity, precipitation days, sunshine hours) and reduce precision (from 0.1 °C to 1 °F; the former is 5.6 times more precise) as you did, for example, here. Moreover, the World Meteorological Organisation requires a 30-year record, and the 18 years that Weatherbase provides does not cut it. The Tartanator 17:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Greetings, do you know what weatherbase.com's sources are for the climate data you are adding? I find it difficult to believe that there is reliable data for the most miniscule places in Alberta, such as Wagner, or places that no longer exist such as Masinasin. Hwy43 ( talk) 21:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello... ( talk) In reference to Masinasin, there's data from both Environment Canada and the NOAA, in checking that specific example. We have a merged view of both sources in Wxbase.
The data sources specific to Weatherbase are a centralized, normalized system of climatic data, spanning more than 3 dozen sources. In about 20 of the cases, usually for more remote regions, we're pulling in the normalized averages from the national met offices, and joining the data to both remove redundancy, fix obvious errors. In the remainder of the cases, we're pulling in the raw daily records from archives, to stay more current, and updating the records and averages. Whereas the climate normals get updated every 10 years, the vast majority of our locations get updated annually.
I'd encourage you to check Weatherbase's background on the Net. It's been around for 13 years... The main focus is cleaning notoriously hard to read and find government data and presenting a unified view of the information that's human readable vs. targeted at meteorologists.
Let me know if you have any questions. We're populating several thousand wikipedia articles over the next few weeks for locations that don't have any climatological data. We've been cited (without permission, but it's fine) several hundred times on Wikipedia, and unfortunately we often found ourselves correcting transcription errors for which people thought Weatherbase had it wrong when in fact it was copied into Wikipedia wrong. We realized we were better off in the long run making sure Wiki had the information directly from our database, thus avoiding transcription errors. It's a win for Wiki to get the data direct from the source, and speaking frankly, better for Weatherbase as it eliminates errors from copying and retyping into weather tables...
Feel free to check the Weatherbase page for information on the contributors. We don't subscribe to being anonymous, so folks always know who they are talking to.
Please check the threads prior to this. We researched this prior to doing the insertions, including consulting with the Wiki community. We are representing no point of view, nor any editorial content, nor promoting any point of view. What we are doing is inserting statistical data, which inherently has no bias or point of view.
In order to avoid perception of conflict, note we cite the data in the reference vs: the more common link next to the information. In addition, as Wikipedia has a no follow policy, we gain no SEO advantage to this.
What we do gain is the elimination of the misrepresentation of our data by the manual insertion of errors by ensuring the information is coming straight from the database into Wiki.
Either way, while I appreciate your feedback, we are through the updates to Alberta and to articles that neglected to include climate data.
You claim that the data used (for Australia) is from the BoM, however the BoM stats say otherwise and three location you added data to don't even have a weather data (one does have another weather station within 20km but it isn't at the location which your data states its at). So the reliablity of your data is poor (not good as a source since the primary source is up to date).
Your website also contains a large amount of adverts and the fact that you have a ref attached to the link clearly shows you're using Wikipedia to promote your site. Please read WP:AVOIDCOI (which is in WP:COI) and WP:CITESPAM (due to the fact that the site's data is poor). Bidgee ( talk) 12:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Please find the responses below, with citations. Bidgee has made assertations that the data quality is poor. I can see how someone not familiar with climatology can come to that conclusion. Bidgee did a bit of googling to come to the conclusion. I, with a handful of others, have spent more than a decade researching weather stations, so we have a bit more experience in this exact area. Please see the results below all with citations.
Three stations below are stated as not having any weather data (Charlotte Waters, Newcastle Waters and Uluru). You can see from the links that is incorrect. One of the advantages of using multiple sources of data vs. just a single source is more comprehensive coverage. In addition, Bidgee cited Groote Eylandt as the source for Angurugu, when in fact BoM maintained a station there for a number of years, in recent enough history that the data is valid from a weather normals standpoint. An independent meteorologist in the Wiki community is welcome to confirm that fact. In general, for climate normals for non-scientific purposes (e.g. giving an idea of average temperature and precip vs. using for forecasting and actuarial models), you're safe to go back about 30 years. Further than that and the deviations start to become outside acceptable ranges.
I would ask on a go forward basis, particularly from Bidgee, that we look at the facts on the data vs. baseless assertations. To date, you have asserted: -- The data reliability is poor -- that weather stations do not exist when as documented below with citations the stations do exist -- That the sole motivation for this to promote my site -- That adverts somehow undercut the reliability of my information
I appreciate we are not going to agree on the last two points as that are opinion. The first two points however can be independently judged.
I'm happy to have a philosophical debate around the adverts and the motivation is to promote my site. The 3rd paragraph of WP:COI would indicate you should not jumpto that conclusion, but I doubt I'm going to change your mind on points 3 and 4, despite the fact that wiki's no follow policy would make it ridiculous on its face that I would be boosting my SEO ranking, or that by placing a link in a citation that links further down on a page that then links to my site is some manner of winning strategy. I certainly concede the point that being associated with Wikipedia is good for any site's reputation in general. But given my site has been around about longer than Wikipedia (since 1999), I don't think I need the boost. Given the ad revenue pays for the site's servers and all the founders work full time in other positions, we don't see this as a path to retirement.
Let's please instead focus this conversation around the first two accusations: that the data reliability is poor and that weather stations do not exist. From there, once we've had others outside myself and Bidgee evaluate the information below, I'm more than happy to discuss how best to proceed, if at all, with providing information for the benefit of Wikipedia as a whole.
The dataset. -- Of the 13 data points cited below, all 13 exist as valid data stations: -- 11 of the data stations are compiled from BOM data
-- Stations that are still active are a result of an analysis of daily records to recombine the data into normals -- Stations that are no longer active use the monthly normals provided by BOM
-- 1 of the stations uses ISMCS data provided by the noaa -- 1 of the stations is lage enough that it is a blend, compiled from two sources, BOM and ISMCS
A note on the data selection. As a general rule, the more remote the area, the greater the paucity of data. Northern Territory would certainly fall into that category, thus the higher prevalence of single source stations (11 of the 13). As you move into more populated areas (NSW or Darwin), the higher prevalence in Weatherbase's data to have two or three sources for any one location, which allows our error correction and blending of the data sources to shine. This is particularly true in the U.S. where the density of co-op stations, NOAA-run stations and multiple stations sometimes within 1-2km of each other let us really refine the data.
I look forward to feedback on the below. As stated, I have stopped updating any Wikipedia articles until I get a read from the group here if and how to proceed. As you can tell from the above, I'm more than happy to respect community will and opinion on this topic. As you can also tell, I'm a bit sensitive at having thousands of hours of work over more than a decade railroaded by one person whose opinion as to the motive will not change, and therefore chooses to attack the quality of work.
Wiki | Weatherbase | BoM |
Angurugu, Northern Territory | Angurugu, Northern Territory | Groote Eylandt Airport AWS |
This is BOM data: Station ID: 014506 ( http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_014518_All.shtml). It was collected through 1989 and is within the time period to be statistically valid. It is not the station cited by Bigdee | ||
Barrow Creek, Northern Territory | Barrow Creek, Northern Territory | Barrow Creek |
This is BOM data: Station ID 015525. ( http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_015525_All.shtml). Temp data is through 1988, precip through 2010, same as BOM site. | ||
Borroloola | Borroloola, Northern Territory | Borroloola |
This is BOM data: Station ID 014723. ( http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_014723_All.shtml). Data through 2010 | ||
Daly Waters, Northern Territory | Daly Waters, Northern Territory | Daly Waters |
The data here is merged and updated from ISMCS (station id: 96 4626) - ( http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/rcsg/cdrom/ismcs/alphanum.html) and BOM (station ID: 014618). BOM stopped collecting temp data in '86, whereas temp data was available from the ISMCS through 96. The differences reflect combination of data on temp. In this case, the temp is going to be more accurate from Wxbase as it looks specifically at the most current 30 years, whereas the precip is likely to be more current from BOM due to more current info, though I'm not certain if BOM looks at the whole period back to 1873, which given the range would counterintuitively be less accurate, as pulling in data across more than 100 years can actually make it less accurate to reflect current norms | ||
Elliott, Northern Territory | Elliott, Northern Territory | Elliott |
This is BOM data: Station ID 015131. ( http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_015131_All.shtml). Data through 2010 | ||
Maningrida, Northern Territory | Maningrida, Northern Territory | Maningrida |
This is BOM data: Station ID 014400. ( http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_014400_All.shtml). Data through 2007 for temp, 2008 for precip, same as BOM | ||
Minjilang, Northern Territory | Minjilang, Northern Territory | Minjilang |
This is BOM data: Station ID 014011. ( http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_014011_All.shtml). Temp through 1991, precip through 2006 same as BOM. | ||
Charlotte Waters, Northern Territory | Charlotte Waters, Northern Territory | No data (not even within 100km) |
This data is from the ISMCS (station id: 94 4751) - ( http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/rcsg/cdrom/ismcs/alphanum.html). It does not appear to be a BOM station, but rather a WWAS data station. Data would be through 1996, but need to verify exact date | ||
Newcastle Waters, Northern Territory | Newcastle Waters, Northern Territory | No data (not even within 100km) |
This is BOM data: Station ID 015089. ( http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_015089_All.shtml). Older data, but statistically valid for climate norms | ||
Nhulunbuy, Northern Territory | Nhulunbuy, Northern Territory | Nhulunbuy DTW |
This is BOM data: Station ID 014512. ( http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_014512_All.shtml). Temp through 1985 precip through 2010 | ||
Oenpelli, Northern Territory | Oenpelli, Northern Territory | Oenpelli |
This is BOM data: Station ID 014042. ( http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_014042_All.shtml). Data through 2010 | ||
Uluru | Ayers Rock, Northern Territory | Yulara Aero (approx 18.4km from Uluru based on coords) |
This is BOM data: Station ID 015527. ( http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_015527_All.shtml). BOM maintained a station there through the 80s | ||
Yuendumu, Northern Territory | Yuendumu, Northern Territory | Yuendumu |
This is BOM data: Station ID 015528. ( http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_015528_All.shtml). Data through 2010 | ||
Hi, some concerns have been raised above, so please pause the operation until the community has finished reviewing your recent changes. Thanks, John Vandenberg ( chat) 05:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi John...
I'm happy to stop on Australia for now. Appreciate the concerns, and the optics that have been raised, but please feel free to both research myself, Weatherbase and particularly the veracity of the data. I don't mind questions being raised as to the purpose, but do take offense to being accused of spam and having inaccurate data from those who have spent little or no time on weather normals and whose primary concern seems to be I have google ad code on Weatherbase. Bill Frischling
John, as a side note, prior to looking at this initiative, we did a deep dive on the English Wikipedia. As a result, I've got a list of a few hundred articles that cite Weatherbase, and a few thousand that cite other commercial sources (such as the BBC, The Weather Channel, MSN, Pogoda.ru, Yahoo and others). Our methodology was simple: find any that cite Weatherbase and ensure the data is accurate, and find locations that cite no climate data and insert straight from our database to make sure the insertion is accurate. If there's a dropbox I can pop the spreadsheet in, more than happy to share.
Please stop entirely. I'd like to see your response to Bidgee re the Daly Waters data, because if your data is wrong for Australia it could be wrong elsewhere too. It might be an anomoly, or it could be a set of data that should be discarded, or your data might even be 'better'. I understand that you're not thrilled about the concerns that you're spamming Wikipedia; this is all the more reason to stop now so the community can see that you're happy to discuss the matter more before proceeding. John Vandenberg ( chat) 06:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
As a note to the community I have stopped all edits to Wikipedia. As indicated previously, I am well aware there is a no follow policy on the links. Should this be viewed as acceptable, I'm happy to remove the refer links as they are standard. Should the community view otherwise, I'm happy to have all my links reverted and leave Wikipedia alone. But I seem to be caught in a question of my method of updating Wiki (en masse) vs a question of whether geopages should have weather (which seem to be the standard).
As it is clear I need to provide a meteorological justification to the data and methodology. I will be posting this in detail shortly. I would appreciate if one request would be honored: I have no doubt there are experts in meteorology on Wikipedia. I would appreciate one of them reviewing the data I post. I'm becoming a bit exhausted with Bigdee's assertation that because we have adverts we are spam. After 15 years of Internet experience, I can recognize when someone's mind is made up regardless of what information I provide. Bigdee clearly doesn't like sites with adverts. So the thousands of hours I've spent over the last 13 years on refining the data collection and normalization is tainted in his eyes.
If I am going to spend the time responding to someone who is an expert in the Northern Territory vs. meteorology in general, I would appreciate if my response on the data, methodology and historical naming conventions of stations vs. geocoded is both taken seriously and evaluated as such.
I certainly have no wish to offend the Wiki community. I have followed guidelines, disclosed I am the owner of of the site and otherwise am adding data that previously did not exist.
Hans John Vandenberg please advise in regard to having a wiki expert in meteorology take a look as well. I'll have the detailed response to the stations cited with all the origin sources, geocode information and methodology in comparison to the BOM later in the day GMT-5.
Also, if my responses are satisfactory, I am more than open to a more appropriate way to proceed, including just leaving things alone and letting things proceed organically. I didn't mean to offend anyone on Wiki or freak anyone out by going through a list en masse. So I'm certainly open to suggestions.
Thank you and again, my apologies if any offense was taken.
Thank you again for taking time to take a look at this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frisch1 ( talk • contribs)
Frisch1 ( talk) 21:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)Hans Adler that's good advise, thank you. Happy to shift the discussion. My only question: do both areas need to have consensus? Or can I engage in the topic in one area? Thank you and thank you for the info on the sig Frisch1 ( talk) 21:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)Frisch1
Can someone make a quick summary of what the problem is, as i may be able to help. Jason Rees ( talk) 13:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jason... Thank you for agreeing to take a look. I've opened a thread here Climate Updates, but here's the command summary.
I committed a community faux pas when I began a bit more than a week ago mass updating pages with no climate information with Weatherboxes with climate info. I've operated Weatherbase for 13 years, which is a passion project, where I and two others normalize dozens of sources of climate data (NWS/NOAA, ISMCS from NOAA, WMO, SNM, BoM... the list goes on) for use by non-meteorologists. Wiki came on our radar (though I've been using it for years) when we found our data was being used without permission (which is fine). We noticed transcription errors in our data, bad attributions and some other messiness on occasion that we fixed. We thought (perhaps erroneously) that it would be better if we simply inserted the data ourselves, direct from our database, so we knew the information was both clean and correctly cited.
This caught the attention of some editors quickly, and raised questions around motive, spamming and in one case which frankly raised my hackles, the quality of the info (you can see the weatherbase.com thread above... ignore the editorial and take a peek at the tables of information). I'm exiting the thread from weatherbase.com with one editor as when "dogs balls" enter the conversation, I think there's no further useful discussion there.
I have identified 6,800 city and town level pages with no weatherbox present, and have this set, clean and ready to go. I'm more than happy to publish the data where it doesn't exist. It looks like on your user page you are way familiar with met data, so you know what I mean when I say it can be a bit of a pain to wade through, and we've got thousands of hours invested in parsers and some pretty fun algorithms to go through the data, find duplicates, append info, join data based on geoproximity (1 mile or less is our somewhat narrow threshold, and any merge is just identified... we need to take a look before doing it).
I've disclosed that I am one of the operators of Weatherbase, that it's a hobby site, it runs advertising which covers the server costs, and that it's a passion project. The three partners all have full time jobs and do it for fun (much like Wiki editors) and because we believe in it. I've stopped the Wiki updates and am waiting for feedback from the community (non dogs balls related :-) ) as to whether this is acceptable to proceed. If the answer is no, fine. If the answer is yes, want to know how best to proceed. Don't mind investing the time to update these pages.
I'm happy to have the data reviewed for completeness. We update on a yearly cycle for the weather norms. For first order stations, we'll build this from the dailies (not the hourlys). For the rest, or for dark stations (ones that closed in the last handful of years) we use the 30 years published by various met offices.
Would love some constructive feedback. More than happy to have a discussion on the merits. Thank you. Frisch1 ( talk) 15:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Frisch1
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jennifer L. Canty is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer L. Canty until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 20:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
16:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Frisch1. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello Frisch1. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things
you have written about in the article
Jennifer L. Canty, you may have a
conflict of interest, or close connection to the subject.
All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.
If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:
Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. noq ( talk) 17:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the feedback. There is a close connection between the subject and myself. I was trying to follow guidelines by referncing articles and publications with the specific facts posted in question.
As to the notability, understood. She was the founder of a company that was acquired by a much larger company, which is particularly unusual for a woman-owned company in the United States. In addition, she has been cited by major media outlets dozens of times.
Please let me know if you don't feel that would qualify. I would have written more, but as a former journalist, I was trying to keep it to just the facts with specific outside references (Inc Magazine and The Post).
Frisch1 ( talk) 20:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)Frisch1
Before you make any more edits to (especially) locations in the PRC, please do not remove fields (e.g. humidity, precipitation days, sunshine hours) and reduce precision (from 0.1 °C to 1 °F; the former is 5.6 times more precise) as you did, for example, here. Moreover, the World Meteorological Organisation requires a 30-year record, and the 18 years that Weatherbase provides does not cut it. The Tartanator 17:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Greetings, do you know what weatherbase.com's sources are for the climate data you are adding? I find it difficult to believe that there is reliable data for the most miniscule places in Alberta, such as Wagner, or places that no longer exist such as Masinasin. Hwy43 ( talk) 21:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello... ( talk) In reference to Masinasin, there's data from both Environment Canada and the NOAA, in checking that specific example. We have a merged view of both sources in Wxbase.
The data sources specific to Weatherbase are a centralized, normalized system of climatic data, spanning more than 3 dozen sources. In about 20 of the cases, usually for more remote regions, we're pulling in the normalized averages from the national met offices, and joining the data to both remove redundancy, fix obvious errors. In the remainder of the cases, we're pulling in the raw daily records from archives, to stay more current, and updating the records and averages. Whereas the climate normals get updated every 10 years, the vast majority of our locations get updated annually.
I'd encourage you to check Weatherbase's background on the Net. It's been around for 13 years... The main focus is cleaning notoriously hard to read and find government data and presenting a unified view of the information that's human readable vs. targeted at meteorologists.
Let me know if you have any questions. We're populating several thousand wikipedia articles over the next few weeks for locations that don't have any climatological data. We've been cited (without permission, but it's fine) several hundred times on Wikipedia, and unfortunately we often found ourselves correcting transcription errors for which people thought Weatherbase had it wrong when in fact it was copied into Wikipedia wrong. We realized we were better off in the long run making sure Wiki had the information directly from our database, thus avoiding transcription errors. It's a win for Wiki to get the data direct from the source, and speaking frankly, better for Weatherbase as it eliminates errors from copying and retyping into weather tables...
Feel free to check the Weatherbase page for information on the contributors. We don't subscribe to being anonymous, so folks always know who they are talking to.
Please check the threads prior to this. We researched this prior to doing the insertions, including consulting with the Wiki community. We are representing no point of view, nor any editorial content, nor promoting any point of view. What we are doing is inserting statistical data, which inherently has no bias or point of view.
In order to avoid perception of conflict, note we cite the data in the reference vs: the more common link next to the information. In addition, as Wikipedia has a no follow policy, we gain no SEO advantage to this.
What we do gain is the elimination of the misrepresentation of our data by the manual insertion of errors by ensuring the information is coming straight from the database into Wiki.
Either way, while I appreciate your feedback, we are through the updates to Alberta and to articles that neglected to include climate data.
You claim that the data used (for Australia) is from the BoM, however the BoM stats say otherwise and three location you added data to don't even have a weather data (one does have another weather station within 20km but it isn't at the location which your data states its at). So the reliablity of your data is poor (not good as a source since the primary source is up to date).
Your website also contains a large amount of adverts and the fact that you have a ref attached to the link clearly shows you're using Wikipedia to promote your site. Please read WP:AVOIDCOI (which is in WP:COI) and WP:CITESPAM (due to the fact that the site's data is poor). Bidgee ( talk) 12:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Please find the responses below, with citations. Bidgee has made assertations that the data quality is poor. I can see how someone not familiar with climatology can come to that conclusion. Bidgee did a bit of googling to come to the conclusion. I, with a handful of others, have spent more than a decade researching weather stations, so we have a bit more experience in this exact area. Please see the results below all with citations.
Three stations below are stated as not having any weather data (Charlotte Waters, Newcastle Waters and Uluru). You can see from the links that is incorrect. One of the advantages of using multiple sources of data vs. just a single source is more comprehensive coverage. In addition, Bidgee cited Groote Eylandt as the source for Angurugu, when in fact BoM maintained a station there for a number of years, in recent enough history that the data is valid from a weather normals standpoint. An independent meteorologist in the Wiki community is welcome to confirm that fact. In general, for climate normals for non-scientific purposes (e.g. giving an idea of average temperature and precip vs. using for forecasting and actuarial models), you're safe to go back about 30 years. Further than that and the deviations start to become outside acceptable ranges.
I would ask on a go forward basis, particularly from Bidgee, that we look at the facts on the data vs. baseless assertations. To date, you have asserted: -- The data reliability is poor -- that weather stations do not exist when as documented below with citations the stations do exist -- That the sole motivation for this to promote my site -- That adverts somehow undercut the reliability of my information
I appreciate we are not going to agree on the last two points as that are opinion. The first two points however can be independently judged.
I'm happy to have a philosophical debate around the adverts and the motivation is to promote my site. The 3rd paragraph of WP:COI would indicate you should not jumpto that conclusion, but I doubt I'm going to change your mind on points 3 and 4, despite the fact that wiki's no follow policy would make it ridiculous on its face that I would be boosting my SEO ranking, or that by placing a link in a citation that links further down on a page that then links to my site is some manner of winning strategy. I certainly concede the point that being associated with Wikipedia is good for any site's reputation in general. But given my site has been around about longer than Wikipedia (since 1999), I don't think I need the boost. Given the ad revenue pays for the site's servers and all the founders work full time in other positions, we don't see this as a path to retirement.
Let's please instead focus this conversation around the first two accusations: that the data reliability is poor and that weather stations do not exist. From there, once we've had others outside myself and Bidgee evaluate the information below, I'm more than happy to discuss how best to proceed, if at all, with providing information for the benefit of Wikipedia as a whole.
The dataset. -- Of the 13 data points cited below, all 13 exist as valid data stations: -- 11 of the data stations are compiled from BOM data
-- Stations that are still active are a result of an analysis of daily records to recombine the data into normals -- Stations that are no longer active use the monthly normals provided by BOM
-- 1 of the stations uses ISMCS data provided by the noaa -- 1 of the stations is lage enough that it is a blend, compiled from two sources, BOM and ISMCS
A note on the data selection. As a general rule, the more remote the area, the greater the paucity of data. Northern Territory would certainly fall into that category, thus the higher prevalence of single source stations (11 of the 13). As you move into more populated areas (NSW or Darwin), the higher prevalence in Weatherbase's data to have two or three sources for any one location, which allows our error correction and blending of the data sources to shine. This is particularly true in the U.S. where the density of co-op stations, NOAA-run stations and multiple stations sometimes within 1-2km of each other let us really refine the data.
I look forward to feedback on the below. As stated, I have stopped updating any Wikipedia articles until I get a read from the group here if and how to proceed. As you can tell from the above, I'm more than happy to respect community will and opinion on this topic. As you can also tell, I'm a bit sensitive at having thousands of hours of work over more than a decade railroaded by one person whose opinion as to the motive will not change, and therefore chooses to attack the quality of work.
Wiki | Weatherbase | BoM |
Angurugu, Northern Territory | Angurugu, Northern Territory | Groote Eylandt Airport AWS |
This is BOM data: Station ID: 014506 ( http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_014518_All.shtml). It was collected through 1989 and is within the time period to be statistically valid. It is not the station cited by Bigdee | ||
Barrow Creek, Northern Territory | Barrow Creek, Northern Territory | Barrow Creek |
This is BOM data: Station ID 015525. ( http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_015525_All.shtml). Temp data is through 1988, precip through 2010, same as BOM site. | ||
Borroloola | Borroloola, Northern Territory | Borroloola |
This is BOM data: Station ID 014723. ( http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_014723_All.shtml). Data through 2010 | ||
Daly Waters, Northern Territory | Daly Waters, Northern Territory | Daly Waters |
The data here is merged and updated from ISMCS (station id: 96 4626) - ( http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/rcsg/cdrom/ismcs/alphanum.html) and BOM (station ID: 014618). BOM stopped collecting temp data in '86, whereas temp data was available from the ISMCS through 96. The differences reflect combination of data on temp. In this case, the temp is going to be more accurate from Wxbase as it looks specifically at the most current 30 years, whereas the precip is likely to be more current from BOM due to more current info, though I'm not certain if BOM looks at the whole period back to 1873, which given the range would counterintuitively be less accurate, as pulling in data across more than 100 years can actually make it less accurate to reflect current norms | ||
Elliott, Northern Territory | Elliott, Northern Territory | Elliott |
This is BOM data: Station ID 015131. ( http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_015131_All.shtml). Data through 2010 | ||
Maningrida, Northern Territory | Maningrida, Northern Territory | Maningrida |
This is BOM data: Station ID 014400. ( http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_014400_All.shtml). Data through 2007 for temp, 2008 for precip, same as BOM | ||
Minjilang, Northern Territory | Minjilang, Northern Territory | Minjilang |
This is BOM data: Station ID 014011. ( http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_014011_All.shtml). Temp through 1991, precip through 2006 same as BOM. | ||
Charlotte Waters, Northern Territory | Charlotte Waters, Northern Territory | No data (not even within 100km) |
This data is from the ISMCS (station id: 94 4751) - ( http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/rcsg/cdrom/ismcs/alphanum.html). It does not appear to be a BOM station, but rather a WWAS data station. Data would be through 1996, but need to verify exact date | ||
Newcastle Waters, Northern Territory | Newcastle Waters, Northern Territory | No data (not even within 100km) |
This is BOM data: Station ID 015089. ( http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_015089_All.shtml). Older data, but statistically valid for climate norms | ||
Nhulunbuy, Northern Territory | Nhulunbuy, Northern Territory | Nhulunbuy DTW |
This is BOM data: Station ID 014512. ( http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_014512_All.shtml). Temp through 1985 precip through 2010 | ||
Oenpelli, Northern Territory | Oenpelli, Northern Territory | Oenpelli |
This is BOM data: Station ID 014042. ( http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_014042_All.shtml). Data through 2010 | ||
Uluru | Ayers Rock, Northern Territory | Yulara Aero (approx 18.4km from Uluru based on coords) |
This is BOM data: Station ID 015527. ( http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_015527_All.shtml). BOM maintained a station there through the 80s | ||
Yuendumu, Northern Territory | Yuendumu, Northern Territory | Yuendumu |
This is BOM data: Station ID 015528. ( http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_015528_All.shtml). Data through 2010 | ||
Hi, some concerns have been raised above, so please pause the operation until the community has finished reviewing your recent changes. Thanks, John Vandenberg ( chat) 05:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi John...
I'm happy to stop on Australia for now. Appreciate the concerns, and the optics that have been raised, but please feel free to both research myself, Weatherbase and particularly the veracity of the data. I don't mind questions being raised as to the purpose, but do take offense to being accused of spam and having inaccurate data from those who have spent little or no time on weather normals and whose primary concern seems to be I have google ad code on Weatherbase. Bill Frischling
John, as a side note, prior to looking at this initiative, we did a deep dive on the English Wikipedia. As a result, I've got a list of a few hundred articles that cite Weatherbase, and a few thousand that cite other commercial sources (such as the BBC, The Weather Channel, MSN, Pogoda.ru, Yahoo and others). Our methodology was simple: find any that cite Weatherbase and ensure the data is accurate, and find locations that cite no climate data and insert straight from our database to make sure the insertion is accurate. If there's a dropbox I can pop the spreadsheet in, more than happy to share.
Please stop entirely. I'd like to see your response to Bidgee re the Daly Waters data, because if your data is wrong for Australia it could be wrong elsewhere too. It might be an anomoly, or it could be a set of data that should be discarded, or your data might even be 'better'. I understand that you're not thrilled about the concerns that you're spamming Wikipedia; this is all the more reason to stop now so the community can see that you're happy to discuss the matter more before proceeding. John Vandenberg ( chat) 06:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
As a note to the community I have stopped all edits to Wikipedia. As indicated previously, I am well aware there is a no follow policy on the links. Should this be viewed as acceptable, I'm happy to remove the refer links as they are standard. Should the community view otherwise, I'm happy to have all my links reverted and leave Wikipedia alone. But I seem to be caught in a question of my method of updating Wiki (en masse) vs a question of whether geopages should have weather (which seem to be the standard).
As it is clear I need to provide a meteorological justification to the data and methodology. I will be posting this in detail shortly. I would appreciate if one request would be honored: I have no doubt there are experts in meteorology on Wikipedia. I would appreciate one of them reviewing the data I post. I'm becoming a bit exhausted with Bigdee's assertation that because we have adverts we are spam. After 15 years of Internet experience, I can recognize when someone's mind is made up regardless of what information I provide. Bigdee clearly doesn't like sites with adverts. So the thousands of hours I've spent over the last 13 years on refining the data collection and normalization is tainted in his eyes.
If I am going to spend the time responding to someone who is an expert in the Northern Territory vs. meteorology in general, I would appreciate if my response on the data, methodology and historical naming conventions of stations vs. geocoded is both taken seriously and evaluated as such.
I certainly have no wish to offend the Wiki community. I have followed guidelines, disclosed I am the owner of of the site and otherwise am adding data that previously did not exist.
Hans John Vandenberg please advise in regard to having a wiki expert in meteorology take a look as well. I'll have the detailed response to the stations cited with all the origin sources, geocode information and methodology in comparison to the BOM later in the day GMT-5.
Also, if my responses are satisfactory, I am more than open to a more appropriate way to proceed, including just leaving things alone and letting things proceed organically. I didn't mean to offend anyone on Wiki or freak anyone out by going through a list en masse. So I'm certainly open to suggestions.
Thank you and again, my apologies if any offense was taken.
Thank you again for taking time to take a look at this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frisch1 ( talk • contribs)
Frisch1 ( talk) 21:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)Hans Adler that's good advise, thank you. Happy to shift the discussion. My only question: do both areas need to have consensus? Or can I engage in the topic in one area? Thank you and thank you for the info on the sig Frisch1 ( talk) 21:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)Frisch1
Can someone make a quick summary of what the problem is, as i may be able to help. Jason Rees ( talk) 13:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jason... Thank you for agreeing to take a look. I've opened a thread here Climate Updates, but here's the command summary.
I committed a community faux pas when I began a bit more than a week ago mass updating pages with no climate information with Weatherboxes with climate info. I've operated Weatherbase for 13 years, which is a passion project, where I and two others normalize dozens of sources of climate data (NWS/NOAA, ISMCS from NOAA, WMO, SNM, BoM... the list goes on) for use by non-meteorologists. Wiki came on our radar (though I've been using it for years) when we found our data was being used without permission (which is fine). We noticed transcription errors in our data, bad attributions and some other messiness on occasion that we fixed. We thought (perhaps erroneously) that it would be better if we simply inserted the data ourselves, direct from our database, so we knew the information was both clean and correctly cited.
This caught the attention of some editors quickly, and raised questions around motive, spamming and in one case which frankly raised my hackles, the quality of the info (you can see the weatherbase.com thread above... ignore the editorial and take a peek at the tables of information). I'm exiting the thread from weatherbase.com with one editor as when "dogs balls" enter the conversation, I think there's no further useful discussion there.
I have identified 6,800 city and town level pages with no weatherbox present, and have this set, clean and ready to go. I'm more than happy to publish the data where it doesn't exist. It looks like on your user page you are way familiar with met data, so you know what I mean when I say it can be a bit of a pain to wade through, and we've got thousands of hours invested in parsers and some pretty fun algorithms to go through the data, find duplicates, append info, join data based on geoproximity (1 mile or less is our somewhat narrow threshold, and any merge is just identified... we need to take a look before doing it).
I've disclosed that I am one of the operators of Weatherbase, that it's a hobby site, it runs advertising which covers the server costs, and that it's a passion project. The three partners all have full time jobs and do it for fun (much like Wiki editors) and because we believe in it. I've stopped the Wiki updates and am waiting for feedback from the community (non dogs balls related :-) ) as to whether this is acceptable to proceed. If the answer is no, fine. If the answer is yes, want to know how best to proceed. Don't mind investing the time to update these pages.
I'm happy to have the data reviewed for completeness. We update on a yearly cycle for the weather norms. For first order stations, we'll build this from the dailies (not the hourlys). For the rest, or for dark stations (ones that closed in the last handful of years) we use the 30 years published by various met offices.
Would love some constructive feedback. More than happy to have a discussion on the merits. Thank you. Frisch1 ( talk) 15:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Frisch1
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jennifer L. Canty is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer L. Canty until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 20:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
16:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Frisch1. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)