Wikipedia does have it's uses

---

@lakeland27 wrote:

oh , its in wiki.. thats alright then. who wrote the wiki page ?

---

I dont know who contributed that particular part, the question is, is it correct?

If it is not, you have the ability to edit it

---

@twinkles**stars wrote:

so it depends on the tone used? no

---

Huh?  Again

---

@**meep** wrote:

---

@lakeland27 wrote:

oh , its in wiki.. thats alright then. who wrote the wiki page ?

---

I dont know who contributed that particular part, the question is, is it correct?

 

If it is not, you have the ability to edit it

 

 

---

like the VCE student , the one who tried to update/edit the wiki israel/palestine page a few years ago. every morning waking up to find it changed back to the pro-israel version that was wrong. i'm sure siggies mates would be doing the same if i did.

---

@lakeland27 wrote:

---

@**meep** wrote:

---

@lakeland27 wrote:

oh , its in wiki.. thats alright then. who wrote the wiki page ?

---

I dont know who contributed that particular part, the question is, is it correct?

 

If it is not, you have the ability to edit it

 

 

---

like the VCE student , the one who tried to update/edit the wiki israel/palestine page a few years ago. every morning waking up to find it changed back to the pro-israel version that was wrong. i'm sure siggies mates would be doing the same if i did.

---

I don't know anything about that.   Regardless, all entries include citations, so the question still stands - is the information  correct?

no. hunt himself knows better . his masters thesis was on the topic of carbon trading, a glowing endorsement of the idea in fact. now that its inconvenient politically, he resorts to wiki ? The real pity about hunt is that he has allowed himself to be 'dumbed down' to fit into the Abbott cabinet.

---

@debra9275 wrote:

Wikipedia does have it's uses

---

Exactly!!  That was why Greg Hunt wanted to see what on earth the rest of the world are reading about Bushfires in Australia

Meep - that sentence was made after the interviewer asked him to respond to Figueres comments about the bushfires and Abbotts response to her. Does that mean he was implying that Figueres was indeed talking "out of her hat" because he could prove what the "rest of the world thought" cause he saw what they thought on Wikipedia?

Not that it makes any reference to Wikipedia acceptable. And not that he even got that right. Wikipedias listing for bushfire/climate link  clearly says our fires are increasing and show alarming stats for fire prone days into the future. He obviously didn't even read past the first line which said "Bushfires in Australia are frequently occurring events during the hotter months of the year" as this is what he indirectly quoted in his interview.

The rest of his comments in the interview were equally idiotic. For example when he was asked if he accepted that there is potentially relationship between rising temperatures and bushfires, he said “Well by definition, bushfires happen in hot weather.” Surely as our govt rep on this issue he could have been less schoolboyish? By responding like that he just looks stupid. Oh Duh! When it's hot, if I throw my cigarette out the window I will start a bushfire. Is that REALLY the reason we have had an increase in bushfire over the last 30 years? Is that REALLY the reason they are predicting catastrophic fires for our future?

And then he claims the issue has only been raised in Australia because of the Greens (seriously??!) and says :“The way in which this was done in Australia was to blame the newly elected government for fires such as this. Even though we’re living under a carbon tax in Australia. You’d imagine then that the logic would be that that would mean there wouldn’t be bushfires,” 

That last sentence leaves me speechless as it almost did the interviewer.

And lol even more!

Someone has just updated his wiki page to read: “After the 2013 election, Hunt was appointed environment minister under prime minister Tony Abbott. He was quoted as saying he uses Wikipedia for important policy research.[4]”

---

@**meep** wrote:

---

@debra9275 wrote:

Wikipedia does have it's uses

---

Exactly!!  That was why Greg Hunt wanted to see what on earth the rest of the world are reading about Bushfires in Australia

 

 

---

---

LOL