Robert wrote:

There is an evident distrust towards academic degrees here, and it doesn't help us. It seems to stem from a misunderstanding of egalitarianism that many Wikipedia contributors have. Some people seem to think that egalitarianism means that all people are equally competant to review an article. This is just as true as saying that all people are equally tall, and that all food in a supermarket is equally nutritious. In other words, the proposition is violently false.

I obviously can't speak for others, but this isn't my particular problem with academic degrees. I certainly don't think all people are equally qualified, but I am not confident that having a PhD is as strong an indicator of qualification as some people seem to think it is. Note also that this is not out of some sort of self-interested jealousy, as I'm currently a PhD student myself, so it would benefit me personally if people would continue to hold PhDs to be worth their weight in gold (hopefully with a similarly-sized paycheck!). But I don't think they are.

I'd honestly be willing to bet my life that a dozen Ph.D.s in Physics will produce better editorial oversight and corrections than a dozen self-selected Internet junkies, when it comes to reviewing Physics articles. I'd honestly be willing to bet my life that a dozen Ph.D.s in American Literature will produce better editorial oversight and corrections than a dozen self-selected Internet junkies, when it comes to reviewing American literature articles.

This depends very highly on the field. If we are talking about quantum physics, then I agree that academics in the field of quantum physics are the people to talk to. There are many fields in which academia is quite a bit of an ivory tower though, generally unaware of anything going on outside its walls. Pick up an academic treatise on "internet culture" sometime if you want a good laugh---you might get a bit of a taste of what the Native Americans might have felt like when 18th-century academics wrote journal articles about their culture. Or to pick an example closer to home, take a look at all the academic literature on the use of websites as a collaborative tool---it by and large ignores Wikipedia and MediaWiki, parading inferior software and discussing problems Wikipedia encountered and solved 2 years ago. If it's not done by someone with a PhD, a lot of academia doesn't know it exists, so academia tends to miss a lot of things.

So, sure, give academia its due, but not more than that. It is very good at some things, and very bad at others.

-Mark

Robert wrote:

There is an evident distrust towards academic degrees here, and it doesn't help us. It seems to stem from a misunderstanding of egalitarianism that many Wikipedia contributors have. Some people seem to think that egalitarianism means that all people are equally competant to review an article. This is just as true as saying that all people are equally tall, and that all food in a supermarket is equally nutritious. In other words, the proposition is violently false.

Violently???

It's not the degrees themselves that provoke distrust. Sometimes it's a close-minded attitude that plays a major role in the student/teacher relationship. That attitude is even more pronounced in secondary schools where teachers can often appear unapproachable. The impression that that leaves on the student is often carried by them into post-secondary learning.. Many professions promote a closed shop mentality that relies on the economic premise that restricting the supply of professionals will increase the amount that those already there can command for their services. They cannot afford to allow groups that will significantly compete for their share of the revenue. This does not mean that every single professional engages in this practice; a lot of rank-and-file professionals undoubtedly recognize the problem, and some of those have been very supportive of the wiki way.

I strongly believe that critical thinking is one of the most important things that can be taught in schools, but that competes with the tradition of the teacher as an authority figure. Teachers need to be questioned at all levels, by kindergarteners as much as by doctoral candidates. There was a comment I heard in some TV news program in the last few days, but I can't quite remember whether it was in the context of US foreign policy or education; it is equally applicable to both. Respect is best achieved when it is commanded rather than demanded. Within a military structure an officer who leads by example commands respect; one who insists on "pulling rank" demands respect.

In our own realm I know that we have had academically degreed contributors, but among those the ones who do the greatest service are the ones who make no virtue of their credentials. Perhaps we don't even know exactly who they are. In contrast those who demand respect because they have Ph. D.'s tend to breed resentment. They too often substitute the authority of their degrees for the authority of academic rigour.

Equality of rights does not imply equality of competence. The rights of all Wikipedians to review all articles should remain, but having made a personal choice of a very limited number of articles to review we are all equally faced with the same standard of verification. For the career academic it is a standard that is more easily met, because he has more tools at his fingertips.

I'd honestly be willing to bet my life that a dozen Ph.D.s in Physics will produce better editorial oversight and corrections than a dozen self-selected Internet junkies, when it comes to reviewing Physics articles. I'd honestly be willing to bet my life that a dozen Ph.D.s in American Literature will produce better editorial oversight and corrections than a dozen self-selected Internet junkies, when it comes to reviewing American literature articles.

Spoken this way it is an expression of pure arrogance. If the "internet junkie" is able to support his research it is just as worthwhile. There are many people out there whose passion for a narrow subject area makes them better informed about it than the academics. You're probably right about your numbers game of the dozen reviewers, but so what?

Accepting the fact that some people have studied a lot and have earned an academic degree does not prevent anyone else from contributing. It does not prevent anyone else from offering corrections or edits. It isn't even anti-egalitarian. True egalitarianism only means that all people have a right to study a subject, and to try and become experts in said subject. It does *not* mean that all people are already experts on said subject!

What about the people who have studied just as much but have NOT earned the academic degree? If it were workable a good rule might be to forbid reviewers from saying if they have a degree.

Ec