From: charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com
William Pietri wrote
As the Chronicle of Higher Education wrote, "But the incident is clearly damaging to Wikipedia's credibility -- especially with professors who will now note that one of the site's most visible academics has turned out to be a fraud."
I'm going to sound like a snob. Why would anyone think tenure at a private college in the mid-West in theology was any kind of high academic profile? Academics would know how to rate this (i.e. there are thousands of middle-aged guys in this general category).
It's not a _high_ academic profile, but I heard a relevant joke on "A Prairie Home Companion" a few weeks ago:
Q: "What do you call a doctor who graduated at the bottom of his class?" A: "Doctor."
I am certain that _any_ of those "thousands of middle-aged guys" have read more books about theology than I ever have. Probably 90% of them have read and remember, not only more than I, but more than a software engineer of my acquaintance who teaches Sunday school, the one whom I call whenever I want to know things like what "the TULIP of Calvinism" is.
A "tenured professor at a private college in the mid-West" is an excellent source of knowledge for anything that a) _within_ the area of the coursework he did as an undergraduate and grad student, and b) _not_ within his area of deep expertise--the area in which he has written his thesis or published research. Those are exactly the areas in which he may have a strong point of view and/or bees in his bonnet, and feel that his credentials entitle him to speak ex cathedra.
On the other hand, he's a great person to ask about material from that course he hated and got the "C" in twenty years ago, because he'll feel insecure and check his facts. The point is, he'll know exactly what facts to check and where to go to check them, and he'll be able to find them quickly and easily.
Academic credentials are easily verified, represent disinterested third-party testimony, and are an imprecise but _valid_ indicator that the degree-holder had at one point in one's life mastered a certain body of knowledge for long enough to pass an exam.
Of course, there could many basic areas in which a layperson, writing with "Catholicism for Dummies" at hand and consulting it while writing, could do better than a tenured professor speaking off the top of his head.
But somewhere between "credentials mean nothing" and "credentials mean everything" is The Truth, which is: "credentials mean _something._"
On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 12:34:23 -0500, "Daniel P. B. Smith" wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wrote:
Academic credentials are easily verified, represent disinterested third-party testimony, and are an imprecise but _valid_ indicator that the degree-holder had at one point in one's life mastered a certain body of knowledge for long enough to pass an exam.
Up to a point. You'll also find that degree holders tend in the main to be better versed in the methodology of research and citation, although that can certainly be learned.
Looking at the average CVG article, I'd say that comp-sci students would be an exception to that :o)
Guy (JzG)
Daniel P. B. Smith wrote:
From: charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com
William Pietri wrote
As the Chronicle of Higher Education wrote, "But the incident is clearly damaging to Wikipedia's credibility -- especially with professors who will now note that one of the site's most visible academics has turned out to be a fraud."
I'm going to sound like a snob. Why would anyone think tenure at a private college in the mid-West in theology was any kind of high academic profile? Academics would know how to rate this (i.e. there are thousands of middle-aged guys in this general category).
It's not a _high_ academic profile, but I heard a relevant joke on "A Prairie Home Companion" a few weeks ago:
Q: "What do you call a doctor who graduated at the bottom of his class?" A: "Doctor."
Custer became a general despite finishing last in his class at West Point.
I am certain that _any_ of those "thousands of middle-aged guys" have read more books about theology than I ever have. Probably 90% of them have read and remember, not only more than I, but more than a software engineer of my acquaintance who teaches Sunday school, the one whom I call whenever I want to know things like what "the TULIP of Calvinism" is.
[[John Calvin]] enterred university at age 14, and was 23 when he received his Doctor of Law. One wonders how such credentials would be regarded today. Would they be recognized here in Wikipedia. :-)
A "tenured professor at a private college in the mid-West" is an excellent source of knowledge for anything that a) _within_ the area of the coursework he did as an undergraduate and grad student, and b) _not_ within his area of deep expertise--the area in which he has written his thesis or published research. Those are exactly the areas in which he may have a strong point of view and/or bees in his bonnet, and feel that his credentials entitle him to speak ex cathedra.
That also opens up the question of what that small college may consider to be appropriate credentials. Would someone with a formation in pastoral theology at a fundamentalist college be capable of handling doctrinal subtleties.
On the other hand, he's a great person to ask about material from that course he hated and got the "C" in twenty years ago, because he'll feel insecure and check his facts. The point is, he'll know exactly what facts to check and where to go to check them, and he'll be able to find them quickly and easily.
Maybe he's still convinced that the professors were wrong in giving him that "C" for heretical views. Jaycee's early reputation was founded in [[Imprimatur]]. It's conceivable that those facts might be checked in a work without an imprimatur. ;-)
Academic credentials are easily verified, represent disinterested third-party testimony, and are an imprecise but _valid_ indicator that the degree-holder had at one point in one's life mastered a certain body of knowledge for long enough to pass an exam.
And nothing more.
Of course, there could many basic areas in which a layperson, writing with "Catholicism for Dummies" at hand and consulting it while writing, could do better than a tenured professor speaking off the top of his head.
"Catholicism for Dummies" is certainly more readable than "Summa theologica".
But somewhere between "credentials mean nothing" and "credentials mean everything" is The Truth, which is: "credentials mean _something._"
Indeed. I still find the truth more satisfying than The Truth.
Ec