[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's provable anti-expertise bias

[Fastfission]

On 11/18/05, charles matthews <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> They're going to think it's patchy, aren't they?

I'm not so much interested in what they think of it in terms of
"quality" but as an overall resource. For example:

1. Do they get the impression that undergraduate students turn to
Wikipedia as a resource?
2. Does Wikipedia influence student work or thinking for the better or
for the worse?
3. Does Wikipedia ever come up in class discussions? In what contexts?
4. Have they themselves ever looked at Wikipedia? What were their impressions?

...and so forth. "Accuracy" and "quality" are here only one part of a
larger question of how something as increasingly prevalent as
Wikipedia interacts with the academic community and academic model.

> Most academics are remarkably poor at popularization.  They write as
> experts, for experts.  Any technical slip will catch their eye, before all
> the work going into access and presentation.

I think that's an unfair exaggeration. Most academics are also smart
enough to know the difference between technical work and popular work.
They know what is a reasonable expectation for an encyclopedia
article, as compared to a monograph. They have pretty low standards
for the internet as a whole.

In general I think it's a better idea to actually ask academics what
they think rather than just assume for the worst using stereotypes of
the uptight and absent-minded professor. I'd avise against getting too
pulled in into ridiculous ivory tower parodies, especially if our
upcoming Wikimania is receiving so much generous support from a number
of academic communities.

FF