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@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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l