Talk:Ecosia/Archive 2

Misrepresentation

“On 3 June 2021, Ecosia announced Ecosia Trees, a service allowing other companies to buy trees at 1€ each that Ecosia would then plant and maintain.[28][29][30] These reforestation efforts would be focused on Brazil and Burkina Faso.[28] While such efforts can benefit ecosystems where the trees are planted, botanists have warned that if such reforestation efforts are badly managed, they can harm the environment more than benefit it.[28]”

I read the article linked at [28] and I feel that this sentence misrepresents Ecosia’s reforestation efforts, implying that they are somehow harming the environment. The source mentions irresponsible reforestation AND Ecosia, but it does not correlate the two. Should this sentence be removed? I’m not an expert on Ecosia or reforestation. D0donn (talk) 15:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done This appears to have already been changed by another editor. Adam MLIS (talk) 02:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Number of trees planted

A comment was placed within the code that the current number of trees planted (currently displayed as over 160 million) should not be updated until the number reaches 250 million. That comment has been now removed. The comment is understood in that the number should not be constantly updated, but what is considered a significant milestone is likely to differ among editors. Some might say that 200 million is a significant milestone and worth updating or if the number has not been updated in over a year, then that also would be a good time to update the number. A set number of when to update should not be fixed, but only when one thinks a significant number has been reached and worth editing. Other comments on this topic are welcomed. Adam MLIS (talk) 01:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the annual revenue edit

Hello @JohnFromPinckney! //Undid unsourced revision 1153284933 by Secular Humanist 2022 (talk); where did you get this figure?// Its from the same source that was already cited there before. Just like how the previous revenue of 2021 was calculated by summing up all the months' revenue in 2021, I did it with the months' revenue in 2022. I should have mentioned about the source in the edit summary. Thanks. Secular Humanist 2022 (talk) 09:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for posting here (and to User:Pranay0706, who posted something very similar at my User Talk). The problem is that that's not how WP:CITE works.

First of all (and this is possibly the smallest point), if you add a claim for 2022 figures as you and Pranay did, it cannot possibly be supported by a reference citation dated 22 May 2020. I expect there may have been something sloppy about that citation in the first place, although I have not gone back to see when it was added. The Ecosia page referenced does not currently appear to have a full date on it, so maybe an editor was careless or overly creative.

Second, it seems incorrect to me to add figures for 2022 on 5 May 2023 with a source that, according to the reference citation, you accessed on 15 January 2023. This suggests you verified the 2023 information almost four months ago, and then sat on it. More likely, you completely disregarded the reference citation, which is part of what I'm complaining about.

Most troubling for me, however, is that even with your explanations, Secular Humanist 2022 and Pranay0706, it took me some effort to see where/how I am supposed to be able to verify the claim of 34.5M€ in 2022. The Ecosia page defaults to the most recent month for which they're publishing their figures, and it was not immediately apparent to me that the "March 2023 V" at the top was a drop-down list of monthly blog posts. The citation is insufficient, therefore, to explain to interested readers where we got the information.

At the very least, I would expect the reference citation to explain that our source is an aggregation on monthly blog posts linked dynamically from that page (and with a true |access-date= value). Preferably (to me), you would explicitly list the values you found for the 12 months of 2022 in the citation. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 11:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your valuable corrections, JohnFromPinckney. I hope I rectified that reference citation properly now. Please do mention, if any correction or any other preferable type of adding explanatory notes is needed in it. Secular Humanist 2022 (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Secular Humanist, that is just about as beautiful as I could have hoped for. Thanks for your hard effort and great result! — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 20:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)