I've watched this topic get debated endlessly here, & I feel some
contributors misunderstand the importance of having academics (i.e.,
people with advanced degrees in their fields who also either teach
or publish) contribute to Wikipedia. As with any resource, asking
Academics to contribute has its weaknesses & strengths:
Weaknesses:
* Training or certification does not mean they are infallible in
judgement. There have been countless examples of an academic
abusing his or her authority to furtherher/his view, at the cost
of delaying the advancement of human knowledge. (Ec & I mentioned
2 some months ago in this maillist: the delay in translating Mayan
writing, & the publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls.) And anyone
who has attended college probably can recite examples of various
professors asserting as incontrovertible truth apalling howlers
of judgement. (I could quote a few myself, but that would likely
lead to OT arguments.)
* Arrogance. By the fact they have arrived at the end of a long
road of training, academics tend to be prima donnas; some handle it
better than others. I feel this is one reason that some academics
have problems dealing with the Internet. It's not so much that they
have to respond to every objection -- even if it comes from a crank,
a child, or someone quoting an out-of-date textbook -- but that
when an Internet group works, it is because its members only care
for accuracy & correctness & are equally harsh on anyone who
violates these terms whether they are a tenured professor, a crank,
a child, or someone quoting an out-of-date textbook.
* Careerism. It's an open secret that competition for academic
posts is fierce, if not vicious. And if a person knows that she/he is
not the brightest & best in a gvien field, there is a temptation
to compromise standards. Instead of Wikipedia receiving the benefit
ofexpert knowledge, it may instead be victimized by someone only
seeking to advance a career.
Strengths:
* Their training or education is systematic, which means they usually
know what they don't know. Self-educated people frequently don't
realize that, despite their deep amount of knowledge, that what the
holes in their nkowledge are.
* By teaching or publishing papers, they confront the problem of
communicating the subject. They have dealt with the problem of explaining
jargon & complex ideas into words a non-expert can understand, & again,
know what points need to be covered for an article on a given subject
to be considered complete.
* They usually are up to date on the secondary literature; they know
what are important POVs that need to be included. The problem
with importing so many articles on ancient Greece & Rome from EB 1911
is not that facts have changed. The ancient Greks are still considered
the victors in the Persian Wars, Augustus is still considered a Roman
Emperor, Plotinus is still a philosopher. The problem is that in the
last 90 years scholarship has turned to other issues that the editors
of the EB 1911 did not think of covering, most noteably the social &
economic history of ancient Greece & Rome -- which is contained entirely
in the secondary literature published since 1911. And much of that
secondary literature is in the form of specialized periodicals only
available at University libraries -- & sometimes not even there.
In short, if faced with choosing between an expert who does not care to
conform to the Wikipedia way (by which I mean is willing to engage in
give-&-take in the writing of material) & a non-expert who is willing
to learn & "play nice" with other contributors, I would choose the
latter. And I hope I am not alone in this preference.
Geoff
