On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Jacob De Wolff
<jfdwolff(a)doctors.org.uk> wrote:
Alex Bateman and Darren Logan have written in this
week's
Nature, suggesting that scientists contribute content to
Wikipedia rather than simply using it.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/468765c
I can't read the entire article (requires subscription), but thanks
for pointing that out.
I agree whole-heartedly with this bit from one of the comments:
"the principal value of Wikipedia is as a point of entry to the
literature, rather than as a source itself."
It should be made clear though that being a research scientist and
writing encyclopedia articles are two very different skills. Some of
the skills involved are transferable, others need to be acquired to be
successful at both. If you consider those with a deep understanding of
a particular science (or science in general), acquired from training
and education in a science discipline, then what they are bringing to
the collaborative process called Wikipedia is their knowledge of
science and most specifically their knowledge of the sources and how
reliable different sources are.
Those skills are best used, in my view, in identifying sources to be
used, reviewing articles to spot mistakes, explaining the mistakes and
what to write instead, and so on. But in so doing, the need is still
there to work with others (such as prose writers, illustrators,
editors, template coders and so on - just as you would work with an
editorial team if working for a print encylopedia).
This is the key point that some topic area experts who misunderstand
Wikipedia don't seem to get. Editing Wikipedia involves working as
part of a team to improve articles, not working as an individual - the
latter approach doesn't work except on the most obscure of articles.
Carcharoth