Marc Riddell wrote:
And, on not-so-obscure websites, where there is a clear - and acute - academiphobia present.
on 4/23/10 10:31 AM, Charles Matthews at charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com
wrote:
I can show you the academic mathematicians editing, if you like. It's worth analysing the "black legend" that Wikipedia hates academics, though. Fred's comment "Serious academics are knocking down big bucks and writing books" is partly wrong. It would apply to, say, [[Niall Ferguson]], though it must be said that his reputation has taken something of a hit recently. It would not apply to academics who are in academia because money is low on their list of priorities (yes, these guys are definitely not normal). It would not apply to academics who enjoy intellectual work, while writing books is mainly work work. It seems to me that we get many graduate students editing: now why would these people be at the same time academiphobic, and putting themselved into straitened circumstance to hammer on the door of an academic career?
Having interacted with a couple of the more high-profile academics who have run into serious trouble on WP, I think I know the conditions that cause the trouble (roughly speaking, a lack of acceptance that a website is going to have policies and is entitled to have them, quite indepedently of the eminence of someone who would like to turn pages to other uses). I believe there must be many more cases of "I think what you're doing is not that interesting" from academics, than such trainwrecks. I believe the attitude we have to credentials is relatively sensible - typically a doctorate doesn't qualify anyone to pontificate over more than a small area.
And the clear blue water between WP and CZ is not necessarily disadvantageous to us. They reportedly have some issues with fringe science being supported by their hierarchy, to the extent that it could be an embarassment to dislodge it. What WP certainly has is a disrespectfulness for the person set against a respect for the referencing of what they submit. I'm yet to be convinced that that is a wrong decision. It certainly beats the other way round.
The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks. Stick to numbers, Charles, the human equation clearly eludes you.
MR