It turns out that if you're the encyclopedia that everyone actually reads, the mountain will come to you: people will go to some effort to get their field properly documented.
http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/academics-in-new-move-begin-to-work-w...
This is, of course, no reason to be complacent. But it does give us something to reach out with - "look at these other fields that have benefited!", similar to the approach we take with GLAMs.
- d.
Thanks. I've passed it on to a couple of academic mailing lists. Andreas
--- On Sat, 28/5/11, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
From: David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com Subject: [WikiEN-l] The expert problem, dissolved To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Saturday, 28 May, 2011, 23:22
It turns out that if you're the encyclopedia that everyone actually reads, the mountain will come to you: people will go to some effort to get their field properly documented.
http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/academics-in-new-move-begin-to-work-w...
This is, of course, no reason to be complacent. But it does give us something to reach out with - "look at these other fields that have benefited!", similar to the approach we take with GLAMs.
- 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 28/05/2011 23:22, David Gerard wrote:
It turns out that if you're the encyclopedia that everyone actually reads, the mountain will come to you: people will go to some effort to get their field properly documented.
http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/academics-in-new-move-begin-to-work-w...
This is, of course, no reason to be complacent. But it does give us something to reach out with - "look at these other fields that have benefited!", similar to the approach we take with GLAMs.
That's a remarkably fair and sensible piece. We're not even close to a tipping point, as far as others in academe seeing things that way. But in the schematic "experts" - "Wikipedian generalists" - "Joe Public" of where our sustainable editor base is going to come from, it tells us pretty much why academic experts are going to feel any need to be involved with WP.
Charles
On 28/05/2011 23:22, David Gerard wrote:
It turns out that if you're the encyclopedia that everyone actually reads, the mountain will come to you: people will go to some effort to get their field properly documented.
http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/academics-in-new-move-begin-to-work-w...
Here's a quick write-up of my perspective on that conference: http://ragesoss.com/blog/2011/05/30/wikipedia-and-the-psychologists/
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
That's a remarkably fair and sensible piece. We're not even close to a tipping point, as far as others in academe seeing things that way. But in the schematic "experts" - "Wikipedian generalists" - "Joe Public" of where our sustainable editor base is going to come from, it tells us pretty much why academic experts are going to feel any need to be involved with WP.
My impression (admittedly based on a fairly narrow range of experiences in the area) is that we actually are getting pretty close to a tipping point. And the key lever we have for tipping things is better tools and guidance and support for having academic experts assign their students to edit. The amount of enthusiasm and positive reaction to the Wikipedia Ambassador Program and the whole concept of Wikipedia assignments... it seems like a different world than it was a few years ago.
The new education portal, especially as we refine it and start to add some technical tools for helping profs evaluation their students' contributions, is going to be a pretty powerful tool for getting more experts involved (I hope).
-Sage
On 02/06/2011 19:56, Sage Ross wrote:
My impression (admittedly based on a fairly narrow range of experiences in the area) is that we actually are getting pretty close to a tipping point. And the key lever we have for tipping things is better tools and guidance and support for having academic experts assign their students to edit. The amount of enthusiasm and positive reaction to the Wikipedia Ambassador Program and the whole concept of Wikipedia assignments... it seems like a different world than it was a few years ago.
The new education portal, especially as we refine it and start to add some technical tools for helping profs evaluation their students' contributions, is going to be a pretty powerful tool for getting more experts involved (I hope).
Not to be a wet blanket (beyond reason) but we are talking about cultural factors here, with academics. The _students_ are not in fact the experts, obviously enough. I have done some academic outreach work, and there remains always the "publish or perish" question: why would academics themselves find time in their schedules for WP work, if it cannot contribute to their CV?
Now there are good answers to that one (some will and some won't; tenure; amazingly, some academics actually believe in promoting their subject rather than just themselves). The argument that class assignments will prove the soft underbelly of academia depends on some things we can know about (assessment methods, for example - pretty much ruling it out here in the UK), and some we don't (whether more intimate contact with WP mechanisms will enthuse academic experts or put them off).
Obviously catering for evaluation makes sense. But I suspect the key issue is going to turn out to be this: do 20 hours working on a WP assignment teach a student more than 20 hours working on something more conventional? If WP work turns out to be educational, then academics ought to support it. I think there are reasons to be positive about this point.
Charles
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 02/06/2011 19:56, Sage Ross wrote:
My impression (admittedly based on a fairly narrow range of experiences in the area) is that we actually are getting pretty close to a tipping point. And the key lever we have for tipping things is better tools and guidance and support for having academic experts assign their students to edit. The amount of enthusiasm and positive reaction to the Wikipedia Ambassador Program and the whole concept of Wikipedia assignments... it seems like a different world than it was a few years ago.
The new education portal, especially as we refine it and start to add some technical tools for helping profs evaluation their students' contributions, is going to be a pretty powerful tool for getting more experts involved (I hope).
Not to be a wet blanket (beyond reason) but we are talking about cultural factors here, with academics. The _students_ are not in fact the experts, obviously enough. I have done some academic outreach work, and there remains always the "publish or perish" question: why would academics themselves find time in their schedules for WP work, if it cannot contribute to their CV?
I've been meaning to reply to this for some days, and having attended the second editathon at the British Library yesterday, this seems a good time to reply, albeit that was a GLAM event, rather than an academic outreach event, but there are similarities.
Now there are good answers to that one (some will and some won't; tenure; amazingly, some academics actually believe in promoting their subject rather than just themselves). The argument that class assignments will prove the soft underbelly of academia depends on some things we can know about (assessment methods, for example - pretty much ruling it out here in the UK), and some we don't (whether more intimate contact with WP mechanisms will enthuse academic experts or put them off).
My feeling is that Wikipedia will always have a much more broad editing base than just academics or students of academics. This includes those who are pre-university (i.e. high school students), those who are post-university or never went to university (for whom Wikipedia is an interest alongside full-time work), those who are retired, etc. The point being that academics and students on courses run by academics, will always have to fit in alongside other editors (who in turn have to fit in alongside other editors as well).
Obviously catering for evaluation makes sense. But I suspect the key issue is going to turn out to be this: do 20 hours working on a WP assignment teach a student more than 20 hours working on something more conventional? If WP work turns out to be educational, then academics ought to support it. I think there are reasons to be positive about this point.
The key to me seems to be to avoid initial barriers to editing putting people off, and to enable people to work together whatever their background. Some of those from an academic background find it very off-putting having to explain how certain things work when selecting and assessing sources and so on, or when writing in a certain style, and those more familiar with Wikipedia can also find it hard to explain how things work around here.
Having said that, the editathon I was at yesterday was interesting because I got to watch several experienced editors at work and see how their approach differed to mine (in technical details, not overall approach), and also to work with a new editor and see first-hand what bits of the Wikipedia editing experience are difficult to pick up on and which bits are easier to understand.
Though it did make me realise that working together on an article when in the same room is very different to working on an article (or group of articles) when working remotely and communicating on Wikipedia talk pages. You can preview the language of an edit and talk about it before saving it, for instance, as well as talking about a source you have open in front of you (in a book or on the screen). All that discussion normally takes place on Wikipedia talk pages (if at all). Talking face-to-face avoids some of the misunderstandings caused by written communication, but leaves no record of the discussion (unless you summarise it somewhere). Advantages and disadvantages.
One of the key advantages of editors who are academics and students is easier access to academic sources, of course.
Carcharoth
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
The argument that class assignments will prove the soft underbelly of academia depends on some things we can know about (assessment methods, for example - pretty much ruling it out here in the UK), and some we don't (whether more intimate contact with WP mechanisms will enthuse academic experts or put them off).
Obviously catering for evaluation makes sense. But I suspect the key issue is going to turn out to be this: do 20 hours working on a WP assignment teach a student more than 20 hours working on something more conventional? If WP work turns out to be educational, then academics ought to support it. I think there are reasons to be positive about this point.
And as usual, El Reg's coverage manages to be negative anyway. They are truly a lesson to all of us. From http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/01/wikipedia_makes_students_do_better_w... :
This is achieved, however, not by the kids finding stuff out on the notoriously unreliable site, but rather by getting them to write material for it. Fear of criticism by the obsessive Wiki-fiddler community apparently motivates youngsters far more than the worry that their academic supervisors might catch them out in an error....
Normally in cases of Wikipedia's effects on academia - or indeed other fields of endeavour such as journalism, politics etc - the story is one of lazy students, hacks, speechwriters etc clipping stuff from the site without checking it or even disguising it before claiming it as their own work. Today we hear of a new way to exploit the unpaid Wikipedian: lazy college professors can use the crowdsourced encyclo-custodians to mark their students' work, again without any guarantee that they will do so properly or accurately.
And as usual, El Reg's coverage manages to be negative anyway. They are truly a lesson to all of us. From http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/01/wikipedia_makes_students_do_better_w...
Yes, clearly, The Register would have opposed the wheel.
Fred
On 6 June 2011 20:56, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
And as usual, El Reg's coverage manages to be negative anyway. They are truly a lesson to all of us. From
Yes, clearly, The Register would have opposed the wheel.
Only if doing so would have got clicks for ad banners.
- s.
On 06/06/2011 20:59, David Gerard wrote:
On 6 June 2011 20:56, Fred Bauderfredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
And as usual, El Reg's coverage manages to be negative anyway. They are truly a lesson to all of us. From
They completely miss the point, the average product a student creates ends up in landfill, regardless of quality. If a student is asked to produce something that will be used, whether it's a tea-cosy or a Wikipedia article, they will attempt to produce something fit for the purpose of being used, rather than the purpose of getting the necessary grade.