-----Original Message----- From: Marc Riddell [mailto:michaeldavid86@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 10:24 AM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Troubling news on Citizendium
From: "Nina Stratton" ninaeliza@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 08:20:48 -0800 To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Troubling news on Citizendium
+!
On 1/17/07, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
Phil Sandifer wrote:
[...] If Larry wants an encyclopedia free of its biases, he should work on one. But he shouldn't call it an encyclopedia run by experts if he's going to dismiss the experts.
There are plenty of experts going at each other with knives on WP; expertise is simply a fund of knowledge, and does not magically confer diplomatic, communication, or collaboration skills. In fact, great knowledge tends to breed arrogance, making conflict more likely, not less so. CZ adds real names and attributions to the mix, raising the stakes even further by introducing the possibility of effect on one's careers. The organizer would need the superior political skills of an Ivy League dean to make it all work, but Larry's forum postings don't evidence much improvement at diplomacy since the times he was angering editors on WP.
Stan
Ya know what we need in WP, an Article on Expertaphobia: The fear of, and seeming intimidation by, people who know stuff about things.
Someone, I don't recall who it was, wrote that they would never work on something where experts were involved. Really? Who would you go to if you needed heart surgery, or wanted to learn how to play a violin?
Don't look now, but you are working with the aid of experts right now! Those marvelous persons behind the scenes of this computerized market place who make all of this possible. Without them we would be typing into the ether.
Ease up!
Marc Riddell
Unless I have gotten the personalities mixed up, Stan is himself an certified expert employed in an academic setting, which is one reason he can make such an incisive comment about Larry. When I was butting heads with Larry over [[reality]] and [[knowledge]] on Wikipedia in the old days, we were both doing essentially the same thing, I was doing my original research thing, making up stuff from whole cloth, while Larry was, working apparently from memory, putting forth the party line as taught in a freshman philosophy course, as he understood it. It did not occur to either of us to cite substantial reliable sources. What resulted was mutual disgust, vigorously expressed.
Experts, to function well on Wikipedia, need to more than just proclaim themselves an expert and regurgitate what they learned in school. Particularly they must be familiar with the literature and be able to cite it. That may be a rare talent, as is excellent teaching, the underlying skill that is involved in writing an introductory textbook, which is what a Wikipedia article is, in part.
Fred
From: "Fred Bauder" fredbaud@waterwiki.info Reply-To: fredbaud@waterwiki.info, English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 20:57:07 +0000 To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Troubling news on Citizendium
-----Original Message----- From: Marc Riddell [mailto:michaeldavid86@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 10:24 AM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Troubling news on Citizendium
From: "Nina Stratton" ninaeliza@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 08:20:48 -0800 To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Troubling news on Citizendium
+!
On 1/17/07, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
Phil Sandifer wrote:
[...] If Larry wants an encyclopedia free of its biases, he should work on one. But he shouldn't call it an encyclopedia run by experts if he's going to dismiss the experts.
There are plenty of experts going at each other with knives on WP; expertise is simply a fund of knowledge, and does not magically confer diplomatic, communication, or collaboration skills. In fact, great knowledge tends to breed arrogance, making conflict more likely, not less so. CZ adds real names and attributions to the mix, raising the stakes even further by introducing the possibility of effect on one's careers. The organizer would need the superior political skills of an Ivy League dean to make it all work, but Larry's forum postings don't evidence much improvement at diplomacy since the times he was angering editors on WP.
Stan
Ya know what we need in WP, an Article on Expertaphobia: The fear of, and seeming intimidation by, people who know stuff about things.
Someone, I don't recall who it was, wrote that they would never work on something where experts were involved. Really? Who would you go to if you needed heart surgery, or wanted to learn how to play a violin?
Don't look now, but you are working with the aid of experts right now! Those marvelous persons behind the scenes of this computerized market place who make all of this possible. Without them we would be typing into the ether.
Ease up!
Marc Riddell
Unless I have gotten the personalities mixed up, Stan is himself an certified expert employed in an academic setting, which is one reason he can make such an incisive comment about Larry. When I was butting heads with Larry over [[reality]] and [[knowledge]] on Wikipedia in the old days, we were both doing essentially the same thing, I was doing my original research thing, making up stuff from whole cloth, while Larry was, working apparently from memory, putting forth the party line as taught in a freshman philosophy course, as he understood it. It did not occur to either of us to cite substantial reliable sources. What resulted was mutual disgust, vigorously expressed.
Experts, to function well on Wikipedia, need to more than just proclaim themselves an expert and regurgitate what they learned in school. Particularly they must be familiar with the literature and be able to cite it. That may be a rare talent, as is excellent teaching, the underlying skill that is involved in writing an introductory textbook, which is what a Wikipedia article is, in part.
Fred
Fred,
I was not referring to anyone in particular; simply the attitudes some in WP seem to have regarding the input of "experts"
Marc
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fred Bauder wrote:
Unless I have gotten the personalities mixed up, Stan is himself an certified expert employed in an academic setting, which is one reason he can make such an incisive comment about Larry.
Indeed I think this is a general feature. I was a lot more deferent towards experts before I went into academia---once you find out how the sausage is made, and even occasionally get deferred to yourself in an area where you know your word has no business being accepted unquestioningly, it's hard to view it in as idealized a fashion. I'd say most of the academics I know on Wikipedia are *less* deferent towards credentials than most of the non-academics are (with some exceptions).
-Mark
On 17/01/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Indeed I think this is a general feature. I was a lot more deferent towards experts before I went into academia---once you find out how the sausage is made, and even occasionally get deferred to yourself in an area where you know your word has no business being accepted unquestioningly, it's hard to view it in as idealized a fashion.
"I am what passes for an expert in field x. This is a frightening concept."
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 17/01/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Indeed I think this is a general feature. I was a lot more deferent towards experts before I went into academia---once you find out how the sausage is made, and even occasionally get deferred to yourself in an area where you know your word has no business being accepted unquestioningly, it's hard to view it in as idealized a fashion.
"I am what passes for an expert in field x. This is a frightening concept."
In your case, it's true in TWO fields. Be afraid, be very afraid...
Delirium wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
Unless I have gotten the personalities mixed up, Stan is himself an certified expert employed in an academic setting, which is one reason he can make such an incisive comment about Larry.
Indeed I think this is a general feature. I was a lot more deferent towards experts before I went into academia---once you find out how the sausage is made, and even occasionally get deferred to yourself in an area where you know your word has no business being accepted unquestioningly, it's hard to view it in as idealized a fashion. I'd say most of the academics I know on Wikipedia are *less* deferent towards credentials than most of the non-academics are (with some exceptions).
I agree in general, but deference to lawyers continues. "IANAL" appears far more frequently that any similar phrase for other professions.
Ec
On 1/19/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I agree in general, but deference to lawyers continues. "IANAL" appears far more frequently that any similar phrase for other professions.
Ec
Lawyers can hurt you more than most academics. It is also not normaly illegal to practice say maths without a lisence. It is illegal to practice law without a lisence.
On 1/17/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
Experts, to function well on Wikipedia, need to more than just proclaim themselves an expert and regurgitate what they learned in school. Particularly they must be familiar with the literature and be able to cite it. That may be a rare talent, as is excellent teaching, the underlying skill that is involved in writing an introductory textbook, which is what a Wikipedia article is, in part.
Side benefit of Wikipedia: we're teaching legions (well, thousands) of people who otherwise never would have had the opportunity how to do good, well researched and cited academic type writing.
You can see this in how some professors are making Wikipedia articles be "the class writing project" for some courses... Even they consider it an environment where both the process and final products are good practice for that.
Side benefit of Wikipedia: we're teaching legions (well, thousands) of people who otherwise never would have had the opportunity how to do good, well researched and cited academic type writing.
According to Wikipedia (see how easy it is? Why can't the newspapers manage... it's just 3 words... oh well...) a Roman legion generally consisted of between 1000 and 6000 men, so no need to correct yourself.
On 1/17/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
According to Wikipedia (see how easy it is? Why can't the newspapers manage... it's just 3 words... oh well...)
Because they have rules against useing wikipedia as a source.
geni wrote:
On 1/17/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
According to Wikipedia (see how easy it is? Why can't the newspapers manage... it's just 3 words... oh well...)
Because they have rules against useing wikipedia as a source.
So which is worse for them: Using a source you can't acknowledge, or acknowledging a source that you can't use?
Ec
George Herbert wrote:
You can see this in how some professors are making Wikipedia articles be "the class writing project" for some courses... Even they consider it an environment where both the process and final products are good practice for that.
Perhaps Phoebe could make this point to the high school librarian that sought her opinions about Wikipedia.
Ec
Fred Bauder wrote:
Experts, to function well on Wikipedia, need to more than just proclaim themselves an expert and regurgitate what they learned in school. Particularly they must be familiar with the literature and be able to cite it. That may be a rare talent, as is excellent teaching, the underlying skill that is involved in writing an introductory textbook, which is what a Wikipedia article is, in part.
Both expert and amateur in theory have the same literature available for citation. The important skill they learned in kindergarten: connecting the dots in the right order.
I wish Wikiversity well, but sometimes I wonder if they have grasped that planning an effective course is more than knowing the subject.
Ec