Wikipedia writers?

[Hurricanehink]

While the tropics are currently inactive, I thought I'd make a post about Wikipedia, and specifically regards to editors in the hurricane project. We are a group of only about 15 people, and we maintain current articles, history, climatology, etc. The current storm articles are in generally pretty good shape, but it's the historical articles that need work.

For example, our coverage on the 1935 Labor Day hurricane, arguably one of the most important Atlantic hurricanes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1935_Labor_Day_hurricane - is sorely lacking, especially compared to a more recent storm like Hurricane Isabel - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Isabel

The fact of the matter is that there are thousands of articles and only a few editors who write everything, which is a shame since so many people rely on Wikipedia. Basically, what I'm asking is if there are any interested users on here in becoming editors. It's very simple. You just need to be able to write (and since this is a forum, most people on here can! ) and do research (and I see many people on here are decent researchers as well). It isn't all that time-intensive either. Over 10 days, I improved Hurricane Diane's article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Diane - by expanding it and doing research, bit by bit at a time.

For those of you interested in hurricanes and research, feel free to join! All you have to do is make an account (which is free and easy), then add your name here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones/Members - myself and other Wikipedia users will help you the rest of the way. I hope to see you there!

[Steve H.]

really? why not make this a sticky.

[Yellow Evan]

I am a longtime editor as well and help is always useful. It is not as bad as it may seem and is quite entertaining. Feel free to contact me (Yellow Evan on there as well) and I hope to see you all there.

[Hurricanehink]

It's really easy to do it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Iris - I wrote this sporadically over the past few days, and now it's the most comprehensive source on Iris online. It's thrilling when you accomplish something like that, creating the best resource in the world over a certain topic.

[Macrocane]

Great! I have a question for you, why are the ACE numbers not shown to the public anymore? I liked that feature.

[Hurricanehink]

Great! I have a question for you, why are the ACE numbers not shown to the public anymore? I liked that feature.

They weren't reliably published by anyone for individual storms, and they aren't generally used as a metric for individual storms. In the future, if, say, the NHC includes the ACE total in their TCR's and it gets more known, we'll probably add it back in, but for now, the Wikipedia article has to reflect reliable, accurate sources.

[Yellow Evan]

Great! I have a question for you, why are the ACE numbers not shown to the public anymore? I liked that feature.

Good question. We had no reliable sources for ACE, so it got removed.

[CrazyC83]

I've updated more in real time, but I have sure been busy lately! Working on pro met status myself eventually...

[cycloneye]

I've updated more in real time, but I have sure been busy lately! Working on pro met status myself eventually...

Good luck on this endeavor that you will go thru and I wish you the best and let's see if you get the blue color.

[CrazyC83]

I've updated more in real time, but I have sure been busy lately! Working on pro met status myself eventually...

Good luck on this endeavor that you will go thru and I wish you the best and let's see if you get the blue color.

Earliest would be 2015-16.

[Macrocane]

Thanks for the answers, even though it was fun to compare ACE numbers you're right about their reliability, after all that's what's wikipedia is about: fast and reliable information.

[Alyono]

Great! I have a question for you, why are the ACE numbers not shown to the public anymore? I liked that feature.

They weren't reliably published by anyone for individual storms, and they aren't generally used as a metric for individual storms. In the future, if, say, the NHC includes the ACE total in their TCR's and it gets more known, we'll probably add it back in, but for now, the Wikipedia article has to reflect reliable, accurate sources.

What? The ACE can be very easily calculated and the sources are widely available. Just use the given formula and the TCR.

This, IMO, is an AWFUL policy by Wiki. Use a little independent thought

[RL3AO]

Great! I have a question for you, why are the ACE numbers not shown to the public anymore? I liked that feature.

They weren't reliably published by anyone for individual storms, and they aren't generally used as a metric for individual storms. In the future, if, say, the NHC includes the ACE total in their TCR's and it gets more known, we'll probably add it back in, but for now, the Wikipedia article has to reflect reliable, accurate sources.

What? The ACE can be very easily calculated and the sources are widely available. Just use the given formula and the TCR.

This, IMO, is an AWFUL policy by Wiki. Use a little independent thought

The policy allows you to use original information if it is "a simple calculation". The members of the project tried to argue that it is a relatively simple calculation (x^2)^-4, but I believe it was rejected as original research by the community.

[Aric Dunn]

blah.. the equations are not particularly relevant. you cant dumb down the atmospheric energy down to a TC. everything is related... although its a good way to relate/ contrast and compare inter-season
and inter-basin statistics. beyond that there is no actual predictive ability encompassed in it. Essentially its a statistical/... in many ways pseudo way to quantify the many unknown variables in fluid/thermal dynamics of our atmosphere.

[RL3AO]

I'd much rather use ACE for comparing basins and seasons then something like number of storms. While it is a simple stat, it is a very useful one IMO.

[Alyono]

The policy allows you to use original information if it is "a simple calculation". The members of the project tried to argue that it is a relatively simple calculation (x^2)^-4, but I believe it was rejected as original research by the community.

then, IMO, the community is clueless and I question their competence. You are using cited sources to use a stat that is often used by the trop met community. Seems a few at Wiki are just stroking their egos

[Hurricanehink]

The policy allows you to use original information if it is "a simple calculation". The members of the project tried to argue that it is a relatively simple calculation (x^2)^-4, but I believe it was rejected as original research by the community.

then, IMO, the community is clueless and I question their competence. You are using cited sources to use a stat that is often used by the trop met community. Seems a few at Wiki are just stroking their egos

But there is no source for the actual ACE value for individual storms.

[Alyono]

But there is no source for the actual ACE value for individual storms.

Its called use the given formula, cite it, and make the simple calculation. That is NOT original research! In the science community, that would be considered review and not new research (you're not using the ACE formula for a calculation that is not widely used... ACE is widely used)

If that is considered wrong, the Wiki TC project is a bunch of Pharisees... more worried about the rules than worried about providing the best service. It mkaes as little sense as does the NWS directive to not use wind data to determine tornado wind speeds

[Hurricanehink]

But there is no source for the actual ACE value for individual storms.

Its called use the given formula, cite it, and make the simple calculation. That is NOT original research! In the science community, that would be considered review and not new research (you're not using the ACE formula for a calculation that is not widely used... ACE is widely used)

If that is considered wrong, the Wiki TC project is a bunch of Pharisees... more worried about the rules than worried about providing the best service. It mkaes as little sense as does the NWS directive to not use wind data to determine tornado wind speeds

I didn't say anything about original research. I just said that we don't have a source for the individual values.

[Yellow Evan]

I'd much rather use ACE for comparing basins and seasons then something like number of storms. While it is a simple stat, it is a very useful one IMO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulated_cyclone_energy

Is this what you are looking for?