[WikiEN-l] Anyone noticed this?

[Fred Bauder]

We could have had quite a conversation if that article had been public.
But, of course, the cited trolls would have weighed in too.

Usually, these days, if I'm editing I'm using a reference to start with
rather than trying to find references for some point. A scientist, or
anyone, with full access to the published literature, and better yet
familiar with it, knowing what references are generally respected in the
field, can easily make major additions to any scientific article if they
start with facts then add them with references.

Some interesting misunderstandings: the idea, for example, that a
Wikipedia article would deviate from what is in textbooks. That is what
we do.

Fred

User Fred Bauder

> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Jacob De Wolff
> <jfdwolff at doctors.org.uk> wrote:
>> Alex Bateman and Darren Logan have written in this week's
>> Nature, suggesting that scientists contribute content to
>> Wikipedia rather than simply using it.
>> http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/468765c
>
> I can't read the entire article (requires subscription), but thanks
> for pointing that out.
>
> I agree whole-heartedly with this bit from one of the comments:
>
> "the principal value of Wikipedia is as a point of entry to the
> literature, rather than as a source itself."
>
> It should be made clear though that being a research scientist and
> writing encyclopedia articles are two very different skills. Some of
> the skills involved are transferable, others need to be acquired to be
> successful at both. If you consider those with a deep understanding of
> a particular science (or science in general), acquired from training
> and education in a science discipline, then what they are bringing to
> the collaborative process called Wikipedia is their knowledge of
> science and most specifically their knowledge of the sources and how
> reliable different sources are.
>
> Those skills are best used, in my view, in identifying sources to be
> used, reviewing articles to spot mistakes, explaining the mistakes and
> what to write instead, and so on. But in so doing, the need is still
> there to work with others (such as prose writers, illustrators,
> editors, template coders and so on - just as you would work with an
> editorial team if working for a print encylopedia).
>
> This is the key point that some topic area experts who misunderstand
> Wikipedia don't seem to get. Editing Wikipedia involves working as
> part of a team to improve articles, not working as an individual - the
> latter approach doesn't work except on the most obscure of articles.
>
> Carcharoth
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>