The contributions of highly ranked academics will be given great
consideration if--and only if--they are able and willing to express
themselves within the norms of the general community, if they accept
the general purposes of Wikipedia, and if they do not insist on their
own importance.
The ones who are rejected are typically trying to do original
research, or trying to insist that their own understanding of the
issue is more important than that of others, or expect to be treated
with deference. The well-publicized complaints have often been along
the lines: I understand the issue and you don't, and here are my
credentials to prove it. All to often, "I understand the issue" means
"My particular view" in a disputed area. Academics achieve high rank
by doing original research, and by promulgating their theories and
their manner of understanding the issues in the field. These do not
necessarily carry over to what is needed at Wikipedia.
Sometimes, to be sure, they run across a zealot (as do all editors),
and they are unreasonably insulted by the need to explain why those
views are not worth consideration (a problem shared by all good
editors working in areas frequented by zealots.)
Among the many reason Citizendium failed is that it relied upon
academic prestige, and the academics who has prestige there were the
ones who joined early (as I did), not necessarily the ones forefront
in the mainstream of their subjects.
Any true expert should be in sufficient command of the sources to be
able to prove their position without having to give credentials. Any
true expert well-suited for work in a cooperative project should be
very glad of the opportunity to do so.
There is and ought to be a cultural difference. Both cultures are
valuable. One was already established, and our work here over the last
decade has succeeded in establish another. (Or , more exactly, our
work was able to build upon the acceptance of the value of open
contributions in the Free Software community to let a similar model
become established more generally)
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 2:07 AM, Ed H. Chi <chi(a)acm.org> wrote:
But the underlying hostility is a problem that
bothers me a lot and I have
been trying to think of ways to bridge the gap.
My understanding has been that historically, edits to articles from
academics with strong credentials are not treated any differently than edits
from anyone else. This has resulted in many academics spending loads of
time editing an article only to be 'reverted' by a single click from a
Recent Changes Patrol, or to be slapped on the wrist with "citation needed".
This has resulted in many misunderstandings, which often did not get a
chance to be discussed in public, because academics often don't have time to
go round and round with someone on Wikipedia talk page.
I believe the culture at Wikipedia has always been that knowledge from
anyone is treated equally. While I admire that principle, it doesn't quite
jive with the academic credential culture, where opinion based on experience
and authority actually counts for something. Go to a faculty meeting, and
you shall see a Full Professor's opinion being weighted more than an
assistant professor just starting out on tenure clock.
There is in operation a Wikimedia Foundation
Education program that is
small and
will not, in my opinion, scale up easily to the size needed.
Agreed. It's a culture that you're trying to change. Yes, an bridge
program can help, but it won't 'solve' the fundamental cultural differences.
--Ed
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
--
David Goodman
DGG at the enWP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG