--- On Sat, 5/2/11, David Goodman <dggenwp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Academic writing makes a judgement
about what the most likely state
of matters is, and gives a position. When I read an
academic paper ,
in whatever field, I expect that there be some conclusions.
(I am
likely to skip ahead and read the conclusions, and, only if
they seem
interesting, then go back and read the evidence.) I
don't see how
community editing can do that, or any anonymous editing for
which a
particular person does not take responsibility: the reason
is that
different people will necessarily reach different
conclusions.
A skilled writer can write so as not to appear to have a
POV, but
nonetheless arrange the material so as to express
one. I think all
good reporting does that, and all good encyclopedia or
textbook
writing. Our articles usually manage to avoid even implying
one,
beyond the general cultural preconceptions, because of the
different
people taking part: their implied or expressed POVs cancel
each other
out.
But it is difficult to write clearly without aiming at a
particular
direction. We try to write articles so the readers will
have an
understanding. An understanding implies a POV. This
provides a
fundamental limit to Wikipedia: it can only be a beginning
guide, and
give a basis for further understanding--"understanding"
implies a
theoretical or conceptual basis, not just an array of facts
of
variable relevance. So our present rules are right for the
way we
work: we can not aim for more than accuracy and
balance. Let those
who wish to truly explain things use Wikipedia as a method
of
orientation, but then they will need to find a medium that
will
express their personal view.
David, as always with your posts, this is an interesting view, and there is
much in it that I half-agree with.
This said, here is the other half: the quality standard that we are aiming
for is FA. FAs are not written in the way you describe; they typically are
polished, they do explain things, apply discrimination in the selection of
sources, and place appropriate weight on mainstream opinion, rather than
focusing on tabloids and POVs from either end of the bell curve.
The same is true about all good encyclopedia or textbook writing, to use
your expression.
FAs are typically written by single authors or small author teams. The
process you describe rarely results in FAs. Once anonymous community editing
takes over, with an opinion inserted here, and a factoid inserted there,
articles usually degrade, and lose FA status. That for example is the way
the Atheism FA seems to be going currently:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atheism&action=history
The question is if we want a jumble of POVs, with duelling extremist
sources inserted by anonymous drive-by editors, or sober articles that give
a balanced overview of the knowledge compiled by society's institutions of
learning.
The problem with the anonymous crowdsourcing process, as it stands, is that
the attraction of a good, emotive soundbyte, motivating an anonymous editor
to insert it in knee-jerk fashion, outweighs the attraction exercised by a
wealth of well-researched published educational content. Researching the
latter takes time and serious effort; inserting a soundbyte does not.
FA writers do survey, access and reflect this educational content. I believe
in good encyclopedia writing. I believe we should aspire to it, and do what
we can to foster it.
Andreas
In teaching, I find even beginning students know this,
and
recognize
the limitations. I think the general public does also, and
it is our
very imperfections that make it evident. If we looked more
polished,
it would be misleading. What we need to work for now is
twofold:
bringing up the bottom level so that what we present is
accurate and
representative, sourced appropriately and helpfully;
and increasing
our breath of coverage to the neglected areas--the
traditional
humanities and similar areas in one direction, and
everything outside
the current English speaking world, in the other .