Hi all, Apologies to those who read it, but there was an interesting article about the value of Wikipedia in academia, based on several academic mailing lists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-07-31/Listser...
It includes this rich quote: "...it is extremely useful as a springboard for further research. It will be impossible to find anything on "goosing" or "Dirty Sanchez" in the more respectable (elitist?) encyclopedias, or much on more obscure forms of sexual behaviour."
I can't wait to see this get used in future AfDs :)
Steve
User:Ragesoss has been doing a lot of great work in publicizing Wikipedia collaborations within his (and my) relevant academic communities. Aside from creating a History of Science Wikiproject, he also sends notices of the History of Science Collaboration of the Month to the largest listserv in the profession.
I think this is a great thing to do. It not only bridges much of the gap between academics and Wikipedia (it makes it clear that academics DO work on Wikipedia as well -- it is not just something "external" to academia), but it also encourages further participation from experts as well as normalizing the idea that an academic might find it worthwhile to contribute. He also puts his own name and reputation on the line, since he does not edit anonymously and makes his academic affiliations very clear.
I think steps like this are the sort of thing which can help build a better, or at least less one-sided, rapport between Wikipedia and relevant expert communities. Even though Wikipedia is open for all there is no great reason that experts should be discouraged from participating. We have a lot of academics at Wikipedia, it would be great if they were willing to defend it to their relevant communities, especially since it appears to have a fairly low standing in academia (due to its sloppy use as a source by sloppy students -- the problem here is not Wikipedia specifically; they'd probably use uncritically whatever came up first in Google, and we happened to be it).
FF
On 8/5/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all, Apologies to those who read it, but there was an interesting article about the value of Wikipedia in academia, based on several academic mailing lists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-07-31/Listser...
It includes this rich quote: "...it is extremely useful as a springboard for further research. It will be impossible to find anything on "goosing" or "Dirty Sanchez" in the more respectable (elitist?) encyclopedias, or much on more obscure forms of sexual behaviour."
I can't wait to see this get used in future AfDs :)
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8/7/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
I think steps like this are the sort of thing which can help build a better, or at least less one-sided, rapport between Wikipedia and relevant expert communities. Even though Wikipedia is open for all there is no great reason that experts should be discouraged from participating. We have a lot of academics at Wikipedia, it would be great if they were willing to defend it to their relevant communities, especially since it appears to have a fairly low standing in academia (due to its sloppy use as a source by sloppy students -- the problem here is not Wikipedia specifically; they'd probably use uncritically whatever came up first in Google, and we happened to be it).
The problem is partially that academics who have had bad experiences with Wikipedia (students citing it, or them getting into edit wars with laypeople) are very vocal about it. Those that have positive experiences keep them to themselves. It's probably the nature of the game - Wikipedia thrives on quiet contributors, strong personalities tend to cause problems.
Steve