[Wikipedia-l] An idea

[Sj]

> > focusing on credentials might well reduce contribution; even in its
> > absence, the most common reason my brilliant iconoclastic US friends
> > give me for not writing about <whatever they're reading / studying> in
> > Wikipedia is that they are "no expert" on the subject.
> >
> > --SJ

That is, my *two* brilliant iconoclastic US friends.  People I would
have thought would glom onto the notion of adding to Wikipedia as a
natural one... but only two; your mileage may vary.

> In a world that is moving to greater transparency, wikipedia is, in
> fact, a model. Consider being able to earn one's degree by writing on
> wikipedia. Edit articles, have a thesis advisor review contributions,
> and score credit appropriately. Adding bibliography, annotation and
> other activities which "polish" wikipedia would be part of assignments.

Indeed.  and encouraging people to write more about their interests,
background, and references/sources is a very good thing in terms of
transparency.  But explicitly making it easy for others to judge you
based on that, is a bit like making "edit count" a metric of community
activity.  It encourages fraud and inflation, and discourages more
accurate and subtle metrics.