http://blog.k1v1n.com/2009/08/if-tree-falls-in-forest-part-1.html
He thinks that experts have a moral obligation to contribute to Wikipedia, because it's the source people actually go to.
(I added a comment that experts without patience for Wikipedia's little ways can contribute by adding a note and refs to a talk page, they don't have to dive into the joys of being a Wikipedian.)
- d.
on 8/2/09 12:26 PM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://blog.k1v1n.com/2009/08/if-tree-falls-in-forest-part-1.html
He thinks that experts have a moral obligation to contribute to Wikipedia, because it's the source people actually go to.
The "moral obligation" is in ensuring the accuracy of the material.
(I added a comment that experts without patience for Wikipedia's little ways can contribute by adding a note and refs to a talk page, they don't have to dive into the joys of being a Wikipedian.)
"Wikipedia's little ways"? Whatever that means.
And, for some of us, the joy is in the diving in. And the deeper the pool the better :-).
Marc Riddell
On 02/08/2009, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://blog.k1v1n.com/2009/08/if-tree-falls-in-forest-part-1.html
He thinks that experts have a moral obligation to contribute to Wikipedia, because it's the source people actually go to.
Dunno about that. I do know that an expert can be defined as somebody who has forgotten how he found out what he knows, and I also know that I have a moral obligation to stick {{cn}} next to what they (or anybody else) write like that, and that they will doubtless find this irritating...
ergo, I have a moral obligation to annoy any experts I find in the wikipedia. ;-)
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
http://blog.k1v1n.com/2009/08/if-tree-falls-in-forest-part-1.html
He thinks that experts have a moral obligation to contribute to Wikipedia, because it's the source people actually go to.
So first you need to show that there is an obligation to do anything [[pro bono publico]] if you are an expert. (OK, declaring that you are doing something pro bono helps shore up a reputation as an expert, but that is not quite what we are discussing.) Then you need to prove that the effectiveness of what you so do should be measured in the sort of "mass media" terms implied here: discrimination about whom you inform is pretty much irrelevant. Then you need to show everyone uses Google and never gets down to the bottom of the first page. (These do seem to be getting easier.)
How about the simpler comment that if you have expertise in an area of public interest, you should consider writing something freely licensed and putting it on the Web where someone can find it and help aggregate it? Those who compile WP tend to have more sophisticated search habits than putting a single keyword into Google and hoping for the best. (Someone please reassure me that this is true ...)
Charles
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 8:14 PM, Charles Matthewscharles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
<snip>
How about the simpler comment that if you have expertise in an area of public interest, you should consider writing something freely licensed and putting it on the Web where someone can find it and help aggregate it? Those who compile WP tend to have more sophisticated search habits than putting a single keyword into Google and hoping for the best. (Someone please reassure me that this is true ...)
I'd agree with this. Publishing a reliable source and making it widely and freely accessible can be better that contributing to Wikipedia. Especially if you are the sort of expert that doesn't have the time and patience for Wikipedia. But equally we have an obligation to make sure that the trolls and POV pushers don't mess things up or distort what is being said in the article that is being supported by said reliable source.
As for searching. It depends what databases and resources you have access too. I frequently come up against paywalls. There are only so many times you can look around for a different source, or ask someone else (who has access) for a copy.
I have something else I want to say about lists and redlinks, but I'll do that in another thread.
Carcharoth
Do experts have an obligation? No. Educators and those whose goal is to improve the world's knowledge, yes. And everyone has a motivation to contribute driven by public interest, but not everyone recognizes it.
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Carcharothcarcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 8:14 PM, Charles Matthewscharles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
How about the simpler comment that if you have expertise in an area of public interest, you should consider writing something freely licensed and putting it on the Web where someone can find it and help aggregate
I'd agree with this. Publishing a reliable source and making it widely and freely accessible can be better that contributing to Wikipedia. Especially if you are the sort of expert that doesn't have the time and patience for Wikipedia. But equally we have an obligation to make sure that the trolls and POV pushers don't mess things up or distort
Agreed. Publishing and promoting standards for how to 'announce' anew publication to Wikipedians, without needing to learn how to edit a talk page, would be a great start -- something like pingback for all major mechanisms people use to publish their works online.
To the comment that Wikipedians adding {{cn}} everywhere annoys experts : this is something we have an obligation to fix. The request for a citation is a way of making offered expertise more valuable, not a way of challenging people for thinking they know something useful to others. We should make the process of getting cites friendly and rewarding, not annoying and combative.
-Sj
Charles Matthews wrote:
How about the simpler comment that if you have expertise in an area of public interest, you should consider writing something freely licensed and putting it on the Web where someone can find it and help aggregate it?
This is a really good point.
Subject-matter expertise is one thing.
Skill with writing is another.
Skill with editing Wikipedia is yet another.
Wikipedia-editing is pretty far removed from subject-matter expertise. It's more about searching and summarizing and collaborating. It's closer to being a librarian than any other occupation. Saying, "Subject-matter experts are morally obliged to edit Wikipedia" is not too far from saying, "Subject-matter experts are morally obliged to volunteer at library help-desks."
Ben
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Ben Kovitzbkovitz@acm.org wrote:
Wikipedia-editing is pretty far removed from subject-matter expertise. It's more about searching and summarizing and collaborating. It's closer to being a librarian than any other occupation.
Librarian? Nah. There are lots of consultants in many fields whose work consists of researching then writing a report. They use their expertise to help them find the information related to a specific query, then formulate a report. *That* is much like Wikipedia.
Steve
Only as much as off-duty doctors, lifeguards, EMTs, etc. have to attempt to save someone's life. Good-samaritan laws exist for a reason.
~A
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 12:26, David Gerarddgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://blog.k1v1n.com/2009/08/if-tree-falls-in-forest-part-1.html
He thinks that experts have a moral obligation to contribute to Wikipedia, because it's the source people actually go to.
(I added a comment that experts without patience for Wikipedia's little ways can contribute by adding a note and refs to a talk page, they don't have to dive into the joys of being a Wikipedian.)
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 9:26 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://blog.k1v1n.com/2009/08/if-tree-falls-in-forest-part-1.html
He thinks that experts have a moral obligation to contribute to Wikipedia, because it's the source people actually go to.
I don't think I'd ever go chiding someone over it, but he brings up a solid point: if you hope to be heard, you need to speak in such a way that people will listen -- this may sometimes include speaking *where* people will listen.
As Charles mentioned, though, experts do quite a lot for us, just by producing those reliable sources we so direly need.
-Luna