Message: 6 Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 23:30:32 +0100 From: Rowan Collins rowan.collins@gmail.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A future for Nupedia?
Folks,
I would PLEAD with everyone to '''not''' go the road of requiring academic certifications for approval (or even to value them excessively).
Granted, I agree there is some need for an approval/review mechanism, but once again GNU/Linux/BSD lead the way: We should IMHO simply adopt the current common Open Source software development practice of having '''stable''' and '''current/unstable''' branches -- ''of each article'', in our case. Periodically, articles would be subjected to similar processes like Peer review and/or Featured article candidates. They would then (if successful) have a certain version declared stable (ie. promoted to the stable branch). (The criteria for "stable" should however not be "brilliant prose" but "factual correctness and NPOV".) This would greatly extend review activity as contributors would be motivated to have their contributions approved for stable and would thus increasingly participate in review processes. Once a sufficient number of articles have stable versions, the respective Wikipedia's default user setting could be switched to "display stable branch".
But we should not, definitely not, ''require'' academic accreditation in any way -- or even attach substantial value to it. Let contributions, not certificates be our decisive factors. Accepting something because A says it and A is academically accredited as xyz is the reverse of an [[ad hominem]] attack -- and it's equally flawed logic, IMHO. There are a lot of reasons why under the "academic model" of a knowledge economy a lot of potentially good ideas are lost and wasted. One example of this might be that an otherwise brilliant head may just not be capable of concentrating for hours and months on end and thus might never have a chance of becoming academically recognized. I thought our core strength was just the very fact that we are able to merge each and every bit of input from each and all comers. As I recently wrote to one of our detractors:
Many of us believe that it is beneficial to make it as EASY as possible to contribute to our encyclopedia.
The traditional approach to writing encyclopedias, to aggregating human knowledge, has been to make it as DIFFICULT as possible to contribute. You have to obtain formal certifications and undergo formal training to be even allowed to contribute. This is done in the hope of reaching and maintaining high standards.
Many of us believe that this however stifles progress as it excludes all knowledge and knowledge-based skills obtained in any other way (than formal accreditation).
We put a process in place that will accept all comers in the first instance -- and combine and distill these collective contributions to reach high standards. Our daily growth and quality improvement shows that the traditional approach -- only allowing very few select individuals to contribute -- wastes enormous talent, potential and opportunity for progress in all fields of human knowledge. Thus, one of our core operating principles is to lower any bars to entry as much as possible, if not to outright abolish them. Anyone can contribute. You don't need to provide certifications. You don't need to show ID or a credit card. You don't need to give an email address. You don't even need to log in or create an account. You can edit. Because you have UNIQUE knowledge skills. Dr. Pyotr Anokhin calculated that the number of possible combinations in the human brain was 10 to the power of 799 (seven hundred ninety nine). In short, NO ONE on this planet will ever have the same thoughts as you. It thus makes sense for us to be as inclusive as possible. We would be honored to welcome your contribution to our modest but growing record of human knowledge.
I would be very disappointed to say the least if this community now turned around to go the "traditional academic" way and proved my view of things wrong.
-- Jens [[User:Ropers|Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com
--- Jens Ropers ropers@ropersonline.com wrote:
I would PLEAD with everyone to '''not''' go the road of requiring academic certifications for approval (or even to value them excessively).
<snip>
But we should not, definitely not, ''require'' academic accreditation in any way -- or even attach substantial value to it. Let contributions, not certificates be our decisive factors. Accepting something because A says it and A is academically accredited as xyz is the reverse of an [[ad hominem]] attack -- and it's equally flawed logic, IMHO.
<snip>
I disagree with you. Personally, I would distinguish between the process for writing articles, and the process of evaluating the quality of articles. For the former, when *writing* articles, academic qualifications should confer no additional authority or weight -- an unqualified person should have an equal right to edit the content of an article as should a PhD.
However, when certifying the quality of articles, I think expert review (in addition to general review) is necessary -- I can give reasons for this, if you want. Academic qualifications are one form of evidence of expertise.
As an example, if physics Prof. Alice and a "layman" -- Bob -- are editing an article on [[quantum physics]], and they disagree on a point, they should discuss it, and cite sources etc; obviously, Alice is not given precedence over Bob because of her position and qualifications. On the other hand, I would suggest that Wikipedia should give somewhat more weight to a Professor Carol, with a 15-year publication record in the field, compared to layman Dave when Carol says that revision 82 of [[quantum physics]] is a thorough and accurate treatment of the subject.
I would emphasise that I *don't* believe that academics are infallible arbiters of truth. My main point is that review of articles requires, amongst other things, expertise. My secondary point is that some evidence of expertise can be found, amongst many other places, in academia.
-- Matt
P.S. I like the idea of "stable" vs "development" versions of an article.
___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
--- Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
I disagree with you. Personally, I would distinguish between the process for writing articles, and the process of evaluating the quality of articles. For the former, when *writing* articles, academic qualifications should confer no additional authority or weight -- an unqualified person should have an equal right to edit the content of an article as should a PhD.
However, when certifying the quality of articles, I think expert review (in addition to general review) is necessary -- I can give reasons for this, if you want. Academic qualifications are one form of evidence of expertise. ... P.S. I like the idea of "stable" vs "development" versions of an article.
<aol>I very much agree with this.</aol>
The stable version could be at http://en.wikipedia.org/stable/Article_Name and the development version would still be at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Name with appropriate backlinks and a different-enough UI to make the distinction obvious.
But we have to start something ala Larry's sifter idea since we are getting slammed in the media due to our perceived non-trusted status (I personally think these objections are laughable since they are comparing us to encyclopedias that are hundreds of years old and that have very similar disclaimers).
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Daniel Mayer wrote:
But we have to start something ala Larry's sifter idea since we are getting slammed in the media due to our perceived non-trusted status (I personally think these objections are laughable since they are comparing us to encyclopedias that are hundreds of years old and that have very similar disclaimers).
The objections are perfectly predictable. They are a natural part of success. Since we are crowding some very big vested interests, these complaints come as no surprise. Somebody's small private wiki with less than 100 articles in total and all filled with absolute nonsense would likely fly completely under the radar with no criticism at all. For them, criticism might mean much desired publicity. . Ec
Matt R wrote:
--- Jens Ropers ropers@ropersonline.com wrote:
I would PLEAD with everyone to '''not''' go the road of requiring academic certifications for approval (or even to value them excessively).
But we should not, definitely not, ''require'' academic accreditation in any way -- or even attach substantial value to it. Let contributions, not certificates be our decisive factors. Accepting something because A says it and A is academically accredited as xyz is the reverse of an [[ad hominem]] attack -- and it's equally flawed logic, IMHO.
<snip>
I disagree with you. Personally, I would distinguish between the process for writing articles, and the process of evaluating the quality of articles. For the former, when *writing* articles, academic qualifications should confer no additional authority or weight -- an unqualified person should have an equal right to edit the content of an article as should a PhD.
However, when certifying the quality of articles, I think expert review (in addition to general review) is necessary -- I can give reasons for this, if you want. Academic qualifications are one form of evidence of expertise.
As an example, if physics Prof. Alice and a "layman" -- Bob -- are editing an article on [[quantum physics]], and they disagree on a point, they should discuss it, and cite sources etc; obviously, Alice is not given precedence over Bob because of her position and qualifications. On the other hand, I would suggest that Wikipedia should give somewhat more weight to a Professor Carol, with a 15-year publication record in the field, compared to layman Dave when Carol says that revision 82 of [[quantum physics]] is a thorough and accurate treatment of the subject.
I would emphasise that I *don't* believe that academics are infallible arbiters of truth. My main point is that review of articles requires, amongst other things, expertise. My secondary point is that some evidence of expertise can be found, amongst many other places, in academia.
The importance of review by academics varies from one topic to another. It is of far greater importance in a subject like quantum physics than history. The average person may be able to read and fully understand a text in history, but a much more advanced knowledge is required to understand quantum physics. Source references are important in either case to enable the user to delve deeper into a subject, and to verify the material to his own satisfaction.
Our standard disclaimer is appropriate. Still, there are many people who give too much credence to what they see on the net. We would do well to do our share to dispel the notion that ANYTHING on the net is definitive. But then too, one might make similar comments about any thing in traditional print mediums. A reader needs to accept a share of the responsibility for what he reads.
Ec
Jens Ropers wrote
I would PLEAD with everyone to '''not''' go the road of requiring academic certifications for approval (or even to value them excessively).
I spent a dozen years as an academic in places people will have heard of, and there is something to this. Let's look at some points.
A) There is an argument that _someone else_ can do this - take selected WP articles, get them refereed, post them on a web site. WP lays the golden eggs.
B) WP excels at the level of survey coverage, rather than specialist (my opinion).
C) What happens to 'be bold' if people's qualifications to edit are an issue?
D) You are not going to get top academics interested.
Charles
Very good points. I agree also that this is not a good idea for a supposedly 'edit by anyone' encyclopedia
I spent a dozen years as an academic in places people will have heard of, and there is something to this. Let's look at some points.
A) There is an argument that _someone else_ can do this - take selected WP articles, get them refereed, post them on a web site. WP lays the golden eggs.
B) WP excels at the level of survey coverage, rather than specialist (my opinion).
C) What happens to 'be bold' if people's qualifications to edit are an issue?
D) You are not going to get top academics interested.
Charles
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 09/10/04 07:42, Charles Matthews wrote:
A) There is an argument that _someone else_ can do this - take selected WP articles, get them refereed, post them on a web site. WP lays the golden eggs.
Yes. It's something for someone else to do somewhere.
I had a job interview recently where I was asked about Wikipedia - it's mentioned at the end of my CV under 'interests'. So I had to give a one-liner on Wikipedia - "a web page that anyone can edit, with version control ... amazed it works as well as it does ... not up to life or death, but up to pub quiz level [thanks to Jimbo for that one, at the recent UK talks!] ... technical articles are usually very good ..." I think I might have recruited one of the interviewers ;-) I did add: "A review process is being put together."
C) What happens to 'be bold' if people's qualifications to edit are an issue?
This is why we have to come up with a sane review process that lets the wiki do the work.
D) You are not going to get top academics interested.
Not with what we have now. And think of the reactions of, e.g., many of wikien-l to academics such as user:172, who does just happen to be very knowledgeable and good at what he does as well as unimpeachably qualified.
- d.
Why not referee the articles ourselves? There is a [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fact_and_Reference_Check ] Fact and reference check project up to cross reference article facts.
The corner stone of the project is a tab system to enclose facts and autogenerates the qutation below. Then people can cross reference the quoted fact with multiple sources, there is an example here [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fact_and_Re... ] that is using ad hoc comment tabs (and doesnt auto generate).
All that needs to be done is to incorporate a tab sytem, perhaps ?? or >>, and have it autogenerate the quote. There are other features that could be added (super scripts, hiding the references, hiding the actual tabs when editing the article) but those can be programmed in later I guess.
Good day,
Shaun MacPherson
--- David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
On 09/10/04 07:42, Charles Matthews wrote:
A) There is an argument that _someone else_ can do
this - take selected WP
articles, get them refereed, post them on a web
site. WP lays the golden
eggs.
Yes. It's something for someone else to do somewhere.
I had a job interview recently where I was asked about Wikipedia - it's mentioned at the end of my CV under 'interests'. So I had to give a one-liner on Wikipedia - "a web page that anyone can edit, with version control ... amazed it works as well as it does ... not up to life or death, but up to pub quiz level [thanks to Jimbo for that one, at the recent UK talks!] ... technical articles are usually very good ..." I think I might have recruited one of the interviewers ;-) I did add: "A review process is being put together."
C) What happens to 'be bold' if people's
qualifications to edit are an
issue?
This is why we have to come up with a sane review process that lets the wiki do the work.
D) You are not going to get top academics
interested.
Not with what we have now. And think of the reactions of, e.g., many of wikien-l to academics such as user:172, who does just happen to be very knowledgeable and good at what he does as well as unimpeachably qualified.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
On 09/10/04 00:17, Jens Ropers wrote:
I would PLEAD with everyone to '''not''' go the road of requiring academic certifications for approval (or even to value them excessively). I would be very disappointed to say the least if this community now turned around to go the "traditional academic" way and proved my view of things wrong.
Indeed. Although I can't phrase it off the top of my head, there seems something very unWikipedian about it.
There must be a way to make the review process work that lets the wiki process do the heavy lifting, and gives sane results.
We can't get a 1.0 out if heavy lifting that can't be done by volunteers is required as part of the process. Let the wiki do the work - just ask it the right question.
- d.
--- David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
There must be a way to make the review process work that lets the wiki process do the heavy lifting, and gives sane results.
A process ala the featured article selection process will be do the heavy lifting - since no special degrees are required to gage basic completeness, grammar, spelling and formatting. Each subject area approval board will develop its own criteria for marking a sub-set of those articles as stable or needing additional work. As noted, some areas of knowledge rely more on people with academic credentials than others. So the relative importance of needing somebody with formal training in the area will vary from one approval board to another.
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com