kosebamse wrote:
Alphax alphasigmax at gmail.com wrote at Tue Nov 15 12:15:00 UTC 2005:
What worries me is that with our growing popularity, we're going to have more experts arriving on our doorstep, trying to write articles on their specialist areas, and leave in disgust when some 2-bit moron votes "d, nn. cruft".
As far as I can say, that has always been a serious problem. It's not a matter of elitism. An expert who is used to discussing his views with well-informed people on an academic level will not enjoy the experience of having to defend basic and established knowledge of his field against schoolkids whose only expertise is with video games. I am offering no opinion on the desirability of it, but the latter probably form a very sizable fraction of our user base.
The problem here is the degree of it. The assumption of bad faith that appears to be far too common on AFD has led to an expert being *driven off* Wikipedia by people who are not only proudly ignorant, but are doing their best to get anti-expert bias made policy and the way things work around here.
- d.
On 11/15/05, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:[...]
The problem here is the degree of it. The assumption of bad faith that appears to be far too common on AFD has led to an expert being *driven off* Wikipedia by people who are not only proudly ignorant, but are doing their best to get anti-expert bias made policy and the way things work around here.
It's funny, but I quite often create "expert" articles on subjects I'd bet that few wikipedians know about, or have even heard of (e.g.:< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cauchy%27s_equation%3E). But I've yet to have one listed on AFD because they are ignorant of the subject, and I'm in no danger of being driven off. Perhaps there's more to the problem than just the "proud ignorance" of AFDers.
Bob Mellish
It's funny, but I quite often create "expert" articles on subjects I'd bet that few wikipedians know about, or have even heard of (e.g.:< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cauchy%27s_equation%3E). But I've yet to have one listed on AFD because they are ignorant of the subject, and I'm in no danger of being driven off. Perhaps there's more to the problem than just the "proud ignorance" of AFDers.
The problem is definitely much less severe in technical fields. But all of these specialized articles serve a common problem: failure to establish context.
When I wrote [[conditional quantum entropy]], I didn't include enough information to tell a general audience how important it was. It might be taught in every undergraduate QM course (no). It might be a specialized topic used by specialized researchers (yes). But people see the article, and say, "this is science, I can't tell how important it is, I don't want to be the one who nominates this". I'm confident that it can get filled out later.
But in the current atmosphere you can't do that with, say, webcomics. Any article on a webcomic *should* explain to a general audience what the importance of the article is. Things are important because of their larger context, and a webcomic article needs to explain that it has 1000 readers, that it was the first keenspace comic to use this-and-that artistic technique, that it was a major influence on Penny Arcade, that it was an early exploration of this-or-that theme in webcomic history. All of those things are much more important than a list of characters, but they're *hard*, and maybe they'll come over time. But these days we're not waiting for them.
In conclusion, I have no idea what position I just took.
-- Creidieki
Bob Mellish wrote:
It's funny, but I quite often create "expert" articles on subjects I'd bet that few wikipedians know about, or have even heard of (e.g.:< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cauchy%27s_equation%3E). But I've yet to have one listed on AFD because they are ignorant of the subject, and I'm in no danger of being driven off. Perhaps there's more to the problem than just the "proud ignorance" of AFDers.
Incomprehension works in several ways. Mathematics is widely believed to be a serious subject, and that may be sufficient to put them in awe of mathematicians. :-) I doubt that they understand any of it.
Ec
What is the definition of "expert" we are working with here? Because there are some forms of expertise which are compatible with our goals and some which are not. I'm an expert of things which are wrong with my house and need repairs, but that doesn't mean that this expertise is worth a damn on here. Expertise in the modern sense usually denotes some sort of specialized training or hands-on experience -- I'm not sure that necessarily applies to people who claim expert status by virtue of their having read a number of webcomics. I think this is at the heart of the question of why obscure scientific principles don't get nominated for deletion but obscure webcomics do.
(I'm not at all clued in to the webcomic debates and I don't participate in AfD very regularly, so I'm not trying to make a specific point, but just raise a general issue.)
(As an aside, it would be interesting to have a fairly comprehensive discussion of what academic experts think of Wikipedia, in relation to teaching as well as just generally. Maybe I could do something of this nature for Wikimania, some sort of pseudo-sociological study...? hmm...)
FF
On 11/15/05, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
kosebamse wrote:
Alphax alphasigmax at gmail.com wrote at Tue Nov 15 12:15:00 UTC 2005:
What worries me is that with our growing popularity, we're going to have more experts arriving on our doorstep, trying to write articles on their specialist areas, and leave in disgust when some 2-bit moron votes "d, nn. cruft".
As far as I can say, that has always been a serious problem. It's not a matter of elitism. An expert who is used to discussing his views with well-informed people on an academic level will not enjoy the experience of having to defend basic and established knowledge of his field against schoolkids whose only expertise is with video games. I am offering no opinion on the desirability of it, but the latter probably form a very sizable fraction of our user base.
The problem here is the degree of it. The assumption of bad faith that appears to be far too common on AFD has led to an expert being *driven off* Wikipedia by people who are not only proudly ignorant, but are doing their best to get anti-expert bias made policy and the way things work around here.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fastfission wrote
As an aside, it would be interesting to have a fairly comprehensive
discussion of what academic experts think of Wikipedia, in relation to teaching as well as just generally.
They're going to think it's patchy, aren't they?
Most academics are remarkably poor at popularization. They write as experts, for experts. Any technical slip will catch their eye, before all the work going into access and presentation.
Most non-user academics are going to miss the point about hypertext. An area of WP with good navigation can get you in an hour what might cost a week of a well-appointed library. But only academics who actually remember the mazy, hazy grad student days of bombardment by things about which one should already know will rate that aspect.
Most popularizing academics will find the tone of WP rather subdued. (This is a good thing. We have no need to do boosterism. )
Charles
The academics at my uni think the wikipedia is mildly offensive, in the sense that they enjoy being paid to write books/journals/whathaveyou, and don't enjoy seeing amateurs giving it away for free. Because of this, and our noticable failings, students are penalised if they attempt to cite the wikipedia as a source at my uni.
I just now returned from an 8 hour seminar wherein we were repeatedly informed that free, non-governmental information on the internet is dubious at best, and should be avoided for anything other than commercial or general knowledge queries. Instead, the online university database was praised (it includes a subscription to britannica, btw ;)
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 11/18/05, charles matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Fastfission wrote
As an aside, it would be interesting to have a fairly comprehensive
discussion of what academic experts think of Wikipedia, in relation to teaching as well as just generally.
They're going to think it's patchy, aren't they?
Most academics are remarkably poor at popularization. They write as experts, for experts. Any technical slip will catch their eye, before all the work going into access and presentation.
Most non-user academics are going to miss the point about hypertext. An area of WP with good navigation can get you in an hour what might cost a week of a well-appointed library. But only academics who actually remember the mazy, hazy grad student days of bombardment by things about which one should already know will rate that aspect.
Most popularizing academics will find the tone of WP rather subdued. (This is a good thing. We have no need to do boosterism. )
Charles
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I just now returned from an 8 hour seminar wherein we were repeatedly informed that free, non-governmental information on the internet is dubious at best, and should be avoided for anything other than commercial or general knowledge queries. Instead, the online university database was praised (it includes a subscription to britannica, btw ;)
Jack (Sam Spade)
Get used to it. As long as we have no validation/review/vetting/rating mechanism we will always be in various stages of dubiousness.
Puddl Duk wrote:
I just now returned from an 8 hour seminar wherein we were repeatedly informed that free, non-governmental information on the internet is dubious at best, and should be avoided for anything other than commercial or general knowledge queries. Instead, the online university database was praised (it includes a subscription to britannica, btw ;)
Jack (Sam Spade
Get used to it. As long as we have no validation/review/vetting/rating mechanism we will always be in various stages of dubiousness.
Yes and no, but that's gradually being worked out.
The problems won't stop if we are more accurate. As long as we are challenging vested interests our material will always be seen as dubious, whether or not it's true.
Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote: Puddl Duk wrote:
I just now returned from an 8 hour seminar wherein we were repeatedly informed that free, non-governmental information on the internet is dubious at best, and should be avoided for anything other than commercial or general knowledge queries. Instead, the online university database was praised (it includes a subscription to britannica, btw ;)
Jack (Sam Spade
Get used to it. As long as we have no validation/review/vetting/rating mechanism we will always be in various stages of dubiousness.
Yes and no, but that's gradually being worked out.
But we are a long way off from adequate in terms of proper control of articles. I came across one edit that had been sitting in an article for a month. The article had been edited numerous times but no-one had spotted the clanger. I happen to know a bit about the topic and realised immediately it was a totally made up bit of vandalism.
Among stuff surviving in articles which I came across lately were * a made up papal encyclical * a claim that Diana Princess of Wales believed that her husband was a shape-shifting lizard from outer space * a non-existing Irish government department
How could any academic remind a site that allows stuff like that sit there, unchallenged in articles for long periods of time? I recently wrote an article for an Irish newspaper about a topic I had seen on Wikipedia. The article was fascinating but to be on the safe side I decided to double check it. 90% was A1. But there were 4 monster errors, all added in month ago but never checked. I hope that no kid in using that article for an essay quoted any of the errors. For every five good articles there is a dud in WP. And within each good article there seems to be dud facts. In a host of areas we are scarily far off encyclopædia standard.
--------------------------------- To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre.
Tom Cadden thomcadden@yahoo.ie wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote: Puddl Duk wrote:
I just now returned from an 8 hour seminar wherein we were repeatedly informed that free, non-governmental information on the internet is dubious at best, and should be avoided for anything other than commercial or general knowledge queries. Instead, the online university database was praised (it includes a subscription to britannica, btw ;)
Jack (Sam Spade
Get used to it. As long as we have no validation/review/vetting/rating mechanism we will always be in various stages of dubiousness.
Yes and no, but that's gradually being worked out.
But we are a long way off from adequate in terms of proper control of articles. I came across one edit that had been sitting in an article for a month. The article had been edited numerous times but no-one had spotted the clanger. I happen to know a bit about the topic and realised immediately it was a totally made up bit of vandalism.
Among stuff surviving in articles which I came across lately were * a made up papal encyclical * a claim that Diana Princess of Wales believed that her husband was a shape-shifting lizard from outer space * a non-existing Irish government department
How could any academic remind a site that allows stuff like that sit there, unchallenged in articles for long periods of time? I recently wrote an article for an Irish newspaper about a topic I had seen on Wikipedia. The article was fascinating but to be on the safe side I decided to double check it. 90% was A1. But there were 4 monster errors, all added in month ago but never checked. I hope that no kid in using that article for an essay quoted any of the errors. For every five good articles there is a dud in WP. And within each good article there seems to be dud facts. In a host of areas we are scarily far off encyclopædia standard.
Another example: tonight I wrote an article on the Royal Assent in the Irish Free State. I know a lot about the topic and have read the major books on the crown and the Free State. Everything in there is verifiable and anyone who knows the facts will see it is 100% kosher. But how many others on WP would know about the topic? I could have sneaked in made-up facts and who would know? Who would know if an expert on science sneaked in dodgy facts into a highly technical article on biotechnology? Might it be weeks, or months before someone with similar knowledge came along, took one look and bellowed 'what the hell?? That is made-up rubbish.' In other words much of what we have on WP we have on trust. On popular pages on popular topics errors can be spotted quickly. But on obscure topics we have to trust that editors are not making up stuff. Or that they are not getting a fact wrong by accident: that a meeting took place on the 6th and not the 7th, that a book title had the word 'in' not 'on', etc.
That is Wikipedia's greatest weakness. I don't know if I read a science article whether it is true or false. At least on Brittanica I know it has been thoroughly vetted. But I can't be sure that the same article on WP was. So how do I know it really is trustworthy?
--------------------------------- Win a Yahoo! Vespa NEW - Yahoo! Cars has 3 Vespa LX125s to be won Enter Now!
Tom Cadden wrote:
Tom Cadden thomcadden@yahoo.ie wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote: Puddl Duk wrote:
I just now returned from an 8 hour seminar wherein we were repeatedly informed that free, non-governmental information on the internet is dubious at best, and should be avoided for anything other than commercial or general knowledge queries. Instead, the online university database was praised (it includes a subscription to britannica, btw ;)
Jack (Sam Spade
Get used to it. As long as we have no validation/review/vetting/rating mechanism we will always be in various stages of dubiousness.
Yes and no, but that's gradually being worked out.
But we are a long way off from adequate in terms of proper control of articles. I came across one edit that had been sitting in an article for a month. The article had been edited numerous times but no-one had spotted the clanger. I happen to know a bit about the topic and realised immediately it was a totally made up bit of vandalism.
Among stuff surviving in articles which I came across lately were
- a made up papal encyclical
- a claim that Diana Princess of Wales believed that her husband was a shape-shifting lizard from outer space
- a non-existing Irish government department
How could any academic remind a site that allows stuff like that sit there, unchallenged in articles for long periods of time? I recently wrote an article for an Irish newspaper about a topic I had seen on Wikipedia. The article was fascinating but to be on the safe side I decided to double check it. 90% was A1. But there were 4 monster errors, all added in month ago but never checked. I hope that no kid in using that article for an essay quoted any of the errors. For every five good articles there is a dud in WP. And within each good article there seems to be dud facts. In a host of areas we are scarily far off encyclopædia standard.
Another example: tonight I wrote an article on the Royal Assent in the Irish Free State. I know a lot about the topic and have read the major books on the crown and the Free State. Everything in there is verifiable and anyone who knows the facts will see it is 100% kosher. But how many others on WP would know about the topic? I could have sneaked in made-up facts and who would know?
Checking facts is much more difficult and time consuming than initially writing an article. It's quite common for people to muddle what they really know with what they imagine that they know. Effective editing requires a questioning mind, and an ability to spot errors which even experts can miss. In the example that you wrote, my first impulse would be to question an apparent contradiction in term between "Royal Assent" and "Irish Free State". There may be a perfectly valid reason, but a good editor should at least ask the question.
Ec
On 11/20/05, Tom Cadden thomcadden@yahoo.ie wrote:
Another example: tonight I wrote an article on the Royal Assent in the Irish Free State. I know a lot about the topic and have read the major books on the crown and the Free State. Everything in there is verifiable and anyone who knows the facts will see it is 100% kosher. But how many others on WP would know about the topic? I could have sneaked in made-up facts and who would know? Who would know if an expert on science sneaked in dodgy facts into a highly technical article on biotechnology? Might it be weeks, or months before someone with similar knowledge came along, took one look and bellowed 'what the hell?? That is made-up rubbish.' In other words much of what we have on WP we have on trust. On popular pages on popular topics errors can be spotted quickly. But on obscure topics we have to trust that editors are not making up stuff. Or that they are not getting a fact wrong by accident: that a meeting took place on the 6th and not the 7th, that a book title had the word 'in' not 'on', etc.
That's what I thought until I spotted a serious mistake in [[Adolf Hitler]].
-- nyenyec
On 11/20/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
The problems won't stop if we are more accurate. As long as we are challenging vested interests our material will always be seen as dubious, whether or not it's true.
Are you talking about the vested interests of the academics? I assure you that most probably care not a bit about Wikipedia and certainly don't see it as a threat. Wikipedia does not compete with the interests of academics in any way -- it has a different audience, different purpose, and entirely different status of "author" than academic work. They are not incompatible in the slightest -- in an ideal world, Wikipedia would be parasitic on academic work, as are other encyclopedias. In the academic ecology, parasitism is actively enjoyed -- the more you are relied upon, the more status you have.
FF
On 11/19/05, Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com wrote:
I just now returned from an 8 hour seminar wherein we were repeatedly informed that free, non-governmental information on the internet is dubious at best, and should be avoided for anything other than commercial or general knowledge queries. Instead, the online university database was praised (it includes a subscription to britannica, btw ;)
If it's anything like my son's college, it will make Wikipedia look a bit silly on most academic subjects. I don't see why Wikipedia should expect to compete at academic level.
On 11/19/05, Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com wrote:
The academics at my uni think the wikipedia is mildly offensive, in the sense that they enjoy being paid to write books/journals/whathaveyou, and don't enjoy seeing amateurs giving it away for free. Because of this, and our noticable failings, students are penalised if they attempt to cite the wikipedia as a source at my uni.
I just now returned from an 8 hour seminar wherein we were repeatedly informed that free, non-governmental information on the internet is dubious at best, and should be avoided for anything other than commercial or general knowledge queries. Instead, the online university database was praised (it includes a subscription to britannica, btw ;)
Jack (Sam Spade)
Well, I'd've gotten penalized for citing Wikipedia too, but I'd also have gotten penalized for citing Britannica. However, various features of Wikipedia made it much better as a quick study aid than the more academically respectable references, and no one was ever the wiser. And it is good as a study aid -- but most university students I know *need* to be cautioned that not everything they read on the internet that looks legit is true. (I love Wikipedia, and I am an optimist, but, well...)
-Kat [[User:Mindspillage]] wannabe academic
-- "There was a point to this story, but it has temporarily escaped the chronicler's mind." --Douglas Adams
My heart is warmed by the pleasent replies. :)
Regrding anti-expert bias, does anyone think verifiable experts should be allowed to cite themselves when editing wiki articles relating to their skills? I'm not sure what I think, but it seems an important question. I can definitely see it being a major step towards a citable, peer-reviewed journal level of quality.
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 11/19/05, Kat Walsh mindspillage@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/19/05, Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com wrote:
The academics at my uni think the wikipedia is mildly offensive, in the sense that they enjoy being paid to write books/journals/whathaveyou, and don't enjoy seeing amateurs giving it away for free. Because of this, and our noticable failings, students are penalised if they attempt to cite the wikipedia as a source at my uni.
I just now returned from an 8 hour seminar wherein we were repeatedly informed that free, non-governmental information on the internet is dubious at best, and should be avoided for anything other than commercial or general knowledge queries. Instead, the online university database was praised (it includes a subscription to britannica, btw ;)
Jack (Sam Spade)
Well, I'd've gotten penalized for citing Wikipedia too, but I'd also have gotten penalized for citing Britannica. However, various features of Wikipedia made it much better as a quick study aid than the more academically respectable references, and no one was ever the wiser. And it is good as a study aid -- but most university students I know *need* to be cautioned that not everything they read on the internet that looks legit is true. (I love Wikipedia, and I am an optimist, but, well...)
-Kat [[User:Mindspillage]] wannabe academic
-- "There was a point to this story, but it has temporarily escaped the chronicler's mind." --Douglas Adams _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Jack Lynch wrote:
Regrding anti-expert bias, does anyone think verifiable experts should be allowed to cite themselves when editing wiki articles relating to their skills? I'm not sure what I think, but it seems an important question. I can definitely see it being a major step towards a citable, peer-reviewed journal level of quality.
I don't see how that would help at all; quite the opposite. I'm not in favor of a blanket prohibition against citing yourself, but it should be viewed with caution and vetted by others.
This isn't unique to Wikipedia, anyway. In "real" academic publications, the same caveat applies: People are much more likely to cite themselves in situations where it is not really appropriate to do so. This is why, when citation indices are compiled, self-citations aren't included in the counts.
-Mark
Delirium wrote:
Jack Lynch wrote:
Regrding anti-expert bias, does anyone think verifiable experts should be allowed to cite themselves when editing wiki articles relating to their skills? I'm not sure what I think, but it seems an important question. I can definitely see it being a major step towards a citable, peer-reviewed journal level of quality.
I don't see how that would help at all; quite the opposite. I'm not in favor of a blanket prohibition against citing yourself, but it should be viewed with caution and vetted by others.
It Depends. I cited my own blog on [[Sharity]], but placed a note on the talk page about it if anyone thinks it's unsuitable. (Sharity is a minor but important piece of software allowing computers running Solaris to mount SMB shares. Linux and FreeBSD do this effortlessly, on Solaris you have to buy the software. And people do.)
- d.
In general citation is aimed not for peppering articles with facts but for giving specific and hopefully notable references.
In the question you've brought up, I would venture that careful judgment is the best rule. An author who insists on trying to insert his own work, which he believes disproves quantum mechanics but hasn't been taken up much by the wider community, into articles relating to quantum mechanics should probably be politely encouraged to stop. (this example is based on an actual case, by the way) It becomes a violation somewhere in between NOR and NPOV if done in that matter.
On the other hand, if the work is relevant, germane, and the intent is not seen as overly problematic, I can see no problem with it.
FF
On 11/19/05, Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com wrote:
My heart is warmed by the pleasent replies. :)
Regrding anti-expert bias, does anyone think verifiable experts should be allowed to cite themselves when editing wiki articles relating to their skills? I'm not sure what I think, but it seems an important question. I can definitely see it being a major step towards a citable, peer-reviewed journal level of quality.
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 11/19/05, Kat Walsh mindspillage@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/19/05, Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com wrote:
The academics at my uni think the wikipedia is mildly offensive, in the sense that they enjoy being paid to write books/journals/whathaveyou, and don't enjoy seeing amateurs giving it away for free. Because of this, and our noticable failings, students are penalised if they attempt to cite the wikipedia as a source at my uni.
I just now returned from an 8 hour seminar wherein we were repeatedly informed that free, non-governmental information on the internet is dubious at best, and should be avoided for anything other than commercial or general knowledge queries. Instead, the online university database was praised (it includes a subscription to britannica, btw ;)
Jack (Sam Spade)
Well, I'd've gotten penalized for citing Wikipedia too, but I'd also have gotten penalized for citing Britannica. However, various features of Wikipedia made it much better as a quick study aid than the more academically respectable references, and no one was ever the wiser. And it is good as a study aid -- but most university students I know *need* to be cautioned that not everything they read on the internet that looks legit is true. (I love Wikipedia, and I am an optimist, but, well...)
-Kat [[User:Mindspillage]] wannabe academic
-- "There was a point to this story, but it has temporarily escaped the chronicler's mind." --Douglas Adams _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 11/18/05, charles matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
They're going to think it's patchy, aren't they?
I'm not so much interested in what they think of it in terms of "quality" but as an overall resource. For example:
1. Do they get the impression that undergraduate students turn to Wikipedia as a resource? 2. Does Wikipedia influence student work or thinking for the better or for the worse? 3. Does Wikipedia ever come up in class discussions? In what contexts? 4. Have they themselves ever looked at Wikipedia? What were their impressions?
...and so forth. "Accuracy" and "quality" are here only one part of a larger question of how something as increasingly prevalent as Wikipedia interacts with the academic community and academic model.
Most academics are remarkably poor at popularization. They write as experts, for experts. Any technical slip will catch their eye, before all the work going into access and presentation.
I think that's an unfair exaggeration. Most academics are also smart enough to know the difference between technical work and popular work. They know what is a reasonable expectation for an encyclopedia article, as compared to a monograph. They have pretty low standards for the internet as a whole.
In general I think it's a better idea to actually ask academics what they think rather than just assume for the worst using stereotypes of the uptight and absent-minded professor. I'd avise against getting too pulled in into ridiculous ivory tower parodies, especially if our upcoming Wikimania is receiving so much generous support from a number of academic communities.
FF
"Fastfission" wrote
In general I think it's a better idea to actually ask academics what
they think rather than just assume for the worst using stereotypes of the uptight and absent-minded professor. I'd avise against getting too pulled in into ridiculous ivory tower parodies, especially if our upcoming Wikimania is receiving so much generous support from a number of academic communities.
I was in the thick of academia for fifteen years. I know of what I speak.
Charles
Ah yes, and I've got good friends who are black... (if I could roll my eyes through e-mail, I would)
FF
On 11/20/05, charles matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"Fastfission" wrote
In general I think it's a better idea to actually ask academics what
they think rather than just assume for the worst using stereotypes of the uptight and absent-minded professor. I'd avise against getting too pulled in into ridiculous ivory tower parodies, especially if our upcoming Wikimania is receiving so much generous support from a number of academic communities.
I was in the thick of academia for fifteen years. I know of what I speak.
Charles
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Isn't this whole argument about academic institutions penalizing people for citing encyclopedias missing the point?
If the Wikipedia article is any good it should cite sources, and if you're at a university you have access to those sources and should check them and cite those where appropriate.
Suppose two of my students turn in essays on the Milgram experiment, one citing Wikipedia as the source and obviously relying on the Wikipedia article on that experiment, the other citing Milgram's paper and Blass' fairly recent critiques, and demonstrating a knowledge of the material. Well odds are that both went to Wikipedia first, but the second one actually did his homework.
I think "the point" you are getting at is what academic standards for undergraduate research are, and, perhaps more importantly, what the goal of such assignments are. Most undergraduates are not assigned papers on topics because the instructor doesn't know about them or really wants the undergraduate to know about them -- it is usually an exercise in whether the student can properly do research, synthesize it, and write it up according to the tropes of the discipline.
As someone else noted, citing Wikipedia is probably at about the same level as citing Encyclopedia Brittanica, though it probably falls even a bit lower than that since 1. Wikipedia is not know for its accuracy or reliability and 2. it is even easier to access than EB and could in that respect reflect a lesser amount of effort made under some interpretations.
All of this is, of course, just one possible rationale for why people might penalize for citing Wikipedia. Whether instructors think that much about it on the whole is probably unlikely, but they do probably get sick of seeing so many citations to one electronic resource, especially one without any expert-based content control.
FF
On 11/21/05, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't this whole argument about academic institutions penalizing people for citing encyclopedias missing the point?
If the Wikipedia article is any good it should cite sources, and if you're at a university you have access to those sources and should check them and cite those where appropriate.
Suppose two of my students turn in essays on the Milgram experiment, one citing Wikipedia as the source and obviously relying on the Wikipedia article on that experiment, the other citing Milgram's paper and Blass' fairly recent critiques, and demonstrating a knowledge of the material. Well odds are that both went to Wikipedia first, but the second one actually did his homework. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Tony Sidaway wrote:
If the Wikipedia article is any good it should cite sources, and if you're at a university you have access to those sources and should check them and cite those where appropriate.
Suppose two of my students turn in essays on the Milgram experiment, one citing Wikipedia as the source and obviously relying on the Wikipedia article on that experiment, the other citing Milgram's paper and Blass' fairly recent critiques, and demonstrating a knowledge of the material. Well odds are that both went to Wikipedia first, but the second one actually did his homework.
That's exactly what I always say. We strive to be (and sometimes, but not yet nearly as much as we'd like) Britannica or better quality. But even at that level of quality, frankly, it's just not appropriate to cite any encyclopedia at the university level. That's not the role of an encyclopedia in the process.
The proper role is what Tony describes here -- you use the encyclopedia to get started, to get an overview, and *then* you do your homework, and hopefully a lot more effectively than you would if you took a random stab at the library catalogue.
--Jimbo
On Tuesday 22 November 2005 08:31, Jimmy Wales wrote:
That's exactly what I always say. We strive to be (and sometimes, but not yet nearly as much as we'd like) Britannica or better quality. But even at that level of quality, frankly, it's just not appropriate to cite any encyclopedia at the university level. That's not the role of an encyclopedia in the process.
I find this argument about usage in school settings to be (interestingly) bogus and encouraging of plagiarism. Clearly, encyclopedias have a function in the schools: encyclopedia = circle of learning -- and paideia, is something you do as a pais, a child (Fowler 1997:15). Even at the graduate level IMHO. Pang (1998) -- even before the WP -- noted that this is was EB's big market. The Britannica CD had extremely strong sales in the home market, and with public schools and libraries with limited Internet access. Institutions were the largest subscriber to the Britannica online. And new CD editions were typical released about now, at the start of the Christmas season. It's interesting EB markets itself to this community, claims authority, but also plays this dance of acceding to not being cited.
In any case, some might say students should use Britannica, but not Wikipedia; or cite one's use of an encyclopedia, or not. I think students should use what is most appropriate and cite it.
[[ http://reagle.org/joseph/blog/culture/wikipedia/usage-and-citation?showcomme... ... If a reference work points me to a more authoritative source, should I at least not acknowledge this bit of help? Particularly, if I'm more likely to be influenced by the summary provided by the reference? Additionally why would any book among the thousands published a year be any more authoritative than a general reference work on the sole basis of its form? I could compile a multipage bibliography of books denying the Holocaust, but find few -- if any -- general-purpose reference works that did the same. The generality of the reference work insulates it from partisan pressures because it must appeal to a wide audience over many topics. It is unlikely that neo-Nazis would publish a useful general reference work for the sole purpose of shifting articles on Jews towards their perspective. However, this is not to say that reference works have no bias. Only, that if we look at the formal genre of a text only -- which is what this rule does -- any given reference work is less likely to be "eccentric" than any book taken at random. ... ]]
Not citing reference works serves the pretense of the academic and the marketing of the masked authority of traditional reference work publishers.
On Nov 22, 2005, at 8:31 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
That's exactly what I always say. We strive to be (and sometimes, but not yet nearly as much as we'd like) Britannica or better quality. But even at that level of quality, frankly, it's just not appropriate to cite any encyclopedia at the university level. That's not the role of an encyclopedia in the process.
The proper role is what Tony describes here -- you use the encyclopedia to get started, to get an overview, and *then* you do your homework, and hopefully a lot more effectively than you would if you took a random stab at the library catalogue.
I think I'm just going to quote Jimbo verbatim next time I tell my students not to cite Wikipedia in their papers, but to go and use it to find better sources.
-Phil
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Jimmy Wales
The proper role is what Tony describes here -- you use the encyclopedia to get started, to get an overview, and *then* you do your homework, and hopefully a lot more effectively than you would if you took a random stab at the library catalogue.
Google is the catalogue, but we are the guidebook.
Peter (Skyring)
Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote: That's exactly what I always say. We strive to be (and sometimes, but not yet nearly as much as we'd like) Britannica or better quality. But even at that level of quality, frankly, it's just not appropriate to cite any encyclopedia at the university level. That's not the role of an encyclopedia in the process.
The proper role is what Tony describes here -- you use the encyclopedia to get started, to get an overview, and *then* you do your homework, and hopefully a lot more effectively than you would if you took a random stab at the library catalogue. That is what I would hope. Unfortunately our lack of enforceable standards in articles means that even using WP to get started is risky. You may get the best encyclopædia in existence with us (and some certainly are in my opinion) but you may get complete tripe (all too common). Or you may get an article which, up to 30 seconds before you looked at it was a masterpiece, but at the moment you look at it contains utter garbage. The problem there isn't vandalism - that is usually easily spotted, but either illinformed edits, people who don't know what they are talking about on the topic but have a 'stab' anyway and completely screw up the article.
Unfortunately WP needs to have a major health warning: "This encyclopædia strives for high standards but does not always achieve them. Check every fact you read here independently. And remember the analysis you read might not be truthful and unbiased but may be distorted and agenda-pushing. While we do our best to stop it happening, it can and unfortunately it does.".
--------------------------------- To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre.