It is my perspective that working through the processes on Wikipedia are too democratic for most academics. It is easier to get a  grant and become the defacto expert  than to be part of the conversation. What I went through last week trying to get support for the South African novel, October, by Zoe Wicomb is a lot more than most professors could bear.

But it seems to me that the group process, while more inclusive, can be obscured when experts study us. I have found this to happen to many grass roots efforts when studied. (labor union actions, migrant worker initiartves, etc.)

--Kathleen

Kathleen de la Peña McCook
Distinguished University Professor of Librarianship
USF/SI: http://si.usf.edu/faculty/kmccook/
Academia.edu: https://usf.academia.edu/KathleendelaPe%C3%B1aMcCook
Library Thing:: http://www.librarything.com/catalog/klmccook/allcollections

========

Zandt argues that Wikipedia is biased because the majority of its editors are “young, white, child-free men.”

“There’s nothing inherently wrong with a young, white, child-free man’s perspective, of course—it’s just that there are tons of other perspectives in the world that should influence how a story gets told,” Zandt wrote in an editorial for Forbes last year, entitled, “Yes, Wikipedia Is Sexist—That’s Why It Needs You.”