Jump to content

Talk:Australia 2020 Summit

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

initial comment

[edit]

I started this article in the hope that there are people out there who will set this Wiki up as a major exercise in democratizing public policy formation. For each of the 10 policy areas [1] let the people input their ideas supported by references. And not just Australians but people throughout the world who may have relevant information.[2] Wikipedia has such huge capacity to centralize verifiable information, log ideas, and hold discussion about these ideas. Why leave democracy in the hands of politicians and public servants? Wikipedia offers the opportunity for everyone to present verifiable information that may be relevant to policy direction. Democracy to the people - Wiki rules! --jcosco (talk) 04:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Centralise verifiable information, yes. Hold discussion, no. That's not Wikipedia's role, but would be suitable for a separate wiki site. -- Chuq (talk) 02:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guests

[edit]

Is there a list of who's attending? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.109.144.214 (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

10 panel member have been selected - see reference. Public nominations have closed, and selection proceeding.--jcosco (talk) 04:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signatures in the article?

[edit]

Why? Timeshift (talk) 09:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of participants

[edit]

I see that the list of participants was taken off. Could we reinclude them but in one of those collapsible boxes? 121.220.77.145 (talk) 15:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too much for a collapsible box. Whilst I think the list is worthy of adding, it is too big for an article. I've created a sub-article and added a link under participants. Timeshift (talk) 03:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wasnt a summit

[edit]

The statement "The Australia 2020 Summit was a summit held..." is clearly not really correct. The word "summit" links to an article which is about meetings between international head of state or heads of government. The Australia 2020 Summit would be better described as being actually a conference or convention. The fact that the word Summit was part of its title, doesn't actually make it one. Eregli bob (talk) 06:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linking is another issue, but it was clearly a summit. What does WP:RS tell us? It's a summit. Timeshift (talk) 06:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "it was clearly a summit" ?? A "summit" is either the top of a mountain, or "A summit meeting (or summit) is a meeting of heads of state or government". These are the accepted plain-english meanings of the word. Which meaning do you think applies to the Australia 2020 event ? It may have been called a "summit", but the event was a convention or a conference. Eregli bob (talk) 07:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. It was called a summit. We had the same debate over the term "stolen generations". Despite some argument over the term "stolen", it was the term used by politicians and the media. Per WP:RS it is a summit. Timeshift (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I actually take the point of the original poster, in that it was not a summit, but the word is so misused and abused these days by so many organisations, groups etc that while I don't think we should link the word "summit" and should describe it instead, Summit is part of the title and should be left. Convention is probably the best word to use/link. Orderinchaos 05:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of the Summit

[edit]

There has been widespread criticism of the summit. Notable and verifiable. Please do not remove. The pretext of labeling the references as opinion pieces is inadequate, these are made by editorial journalists reporting fact within editorial. DDB (talk) 07:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC) fyi Several groups were openly critical of the way the event was run. Promises that were made regarding the independence of the summit were not honored. Participants were restrained from speaking freely. Reported conversations had not happened.[reply]

DDB (talk) 07:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs are not reliable sources per wikipedia policy. Timeshift (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are not blogs in the ordinary sense but newspaper opinion pieces by notable commentators in major newspapers. In the case of Devine she was there.--Matilda talk 21:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which are not reliable sources. Timeshift (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't give them the time of day anywhere else, why should we start here or now? I should note I'd have the same view of Phillip Adams and other left-wing spruikers being quoted, at the end of the day we should be using ideally academic peer-reviewed sources, and at the very least we should be credentialling sources. An *article* in a newspaper is fine, but opinion pieces are where it crosses the line into very shaky territory. Orderinchaos 12:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The links are to blogs, but the articles were posted in mainstream newspapers as columns.DDB (talk) 01:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As opinion pieces, not factual news articles. Timeshift (talk) 01:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But they quote facts with the purpose of supporting the opinion. The facts are not in dispute. There is nothing controversial with the criticism. To remove the criticism would be to promote the event, not report on it. The article is balanced only if it includes the criticism. To be straight, the article needs to be revised all over, as it is more promotional in aspect. Wiki does not need to know the good intentions, but what happened. DDB (talk) 05:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find your skepticism annoying. Timeshift (talk) 07:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you feel that way. I mean no ill will. My sole concern regarding the article is that it contains a complete view, and not a one sided perspective.DDB (talk) 08:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no one sided perspective. Where are the opinion pieces approving the 2020 summit? There aren't any. There is no one sided perspective. Timeshift (talk) 11:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please actually read the guideline Wikipedia:Reliable sources and note that the guideline includes Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market which these opinion pieces are and note that opinion pieces are covered by the guideline. Moreover these Sources should be appropriate to the claims made.--Matilda talk 20:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Serious criticism has been levelled by different people, but if blogs are all we can find, then it suggests there's a bunch of random angry people and nothing that belongs in an encyclopaedia. Also note undue weight within the NPOV policy - heavily weighing down an article with the likes of Bolt, Akerman and Devine (who are, let's not forget, paid spruikers basically - they earn money by loudly disagreeing, and it's not in their interests to report neutrally) seems to be creating future issues we don't actually need. Criticism by those who attended of the final agenda not relating to the points discussed for example would be quite permissible though. Orderinchaos 12:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification OIC. Timeshift (talk) 12:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More than opinion pieces (blogs is not appropriate description for columnists published by reputable news organisations as opposed to self-publication) are now cited. Please review tag - and if you consider still POV - find some material (with cites) and put it in - ie put up or shut up. There is material being positive about the summit, for example review the articles under http://www.abc.net.au/news/tag/australia-2020/ which gives you articles such as The water trading company, Waterfind, has welcomed the focus placed on regional Australia at the 2020 Summit. or The former National Party leader, Tim Fischer, has rejected claims that rural issues were not given enough importance at the 2020 summit. I really do not find such platitudes encyclopaedic but others might. --Matilda talk 23:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the first point, I actually see blatant opinion pieces in the same way as I see blogs, regardless of who publishes them. They're completely unreliable, and earn money for the newspaper by being outspoken and unreliable, and from an encyclopaedic point of view we should avoid them like the plague. At least with articles in the main section of the newspaper we know they've been through a process, even if shows such as Media Watch periodically show that process up.
Regarding the second point, there's plenty of valid (or at least validly sourced) criticism of the 2020 summit - we've come up with three articles which talk about it, and no doubt in the future there will be academic sources saying pretty much the same things either in review or in their own right. My arguments against POV lunatics with long histories and questionable records being given credibility do not preclude any of the other sources being used and I hope we can actually make a decent criticism section to balance the article out. Orderinchaos 02:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the section as best I can. Orderinchaos 03:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One appreciates the effort, but questions what is achieved by removing the reference by one of the delegates (Miranda Devine) or the notable commentators of Bolt and Akerman. Although some slurs were cast their way for being conservative, nothing of substance was made which contradicted their facts or message. DDB (talk) 10:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion pieces are not reliable sources, regardless of which media may publish them. Timeshift (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not the only criterion for inclusion - neutrality is arguably much more important. And there are very good reasons why we don't include blogs or opinion pieces, whether they be Bolt or Adams. Indeed, it's quite likely that what they said can be backed up by other sources - my argument is that it should be. As for conservative, I doubt any of the people in question to whom it has been applied would consider the tag an insult or slur in any way whatsoever. As a final note, the wording I removed today was completely unencyclopaedic and would not stand with any reviewer - we have to be careful to avoid partisan emotional screeds and stick to the facts. Orderinchaos 13:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article contains the criticism both of the process and the delegates. It is adequately referenced by cites that meet the guideline. Can we move along now please.--Matilda talk 20:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank god we got rid of the opinion pieces (ie: non-reliable) of shockjocks, the likes of Bolt and Akerman who get paid to write provoking diatribes rather than the balanced truth. Timeshift (talk) 00:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Australia 2020 Summit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So what were the outputs?

[edit]

For me, who came here to see what came out of the summit, it was disappointing that the outputs from the summit were not referred to at all. Much more interesting than the criticisms, although noting this is a valid aspect to cover. For instance, the idea of the National Disability Insurance Scheme was one output that actually turned into a major, groundbreaking policy. Where is the list of ideas that came out of the Summit? I appreciate that the Summit may have been contested as a concept, but it was at least an attempt at a different approach to democracy and deserves to have more than a list of all the things that were wrong with it. I personally think that the NDIS trumps pretty much all the critiquing. And perhaps there were other ideas that also progressed? 60.242.84.74 (talk) 12:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australia_2020_Summit&oldid=1235827185"