--- On Sat, 5/2/11, David Goodman dggenwp@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 .