http://clioweb.org/2009/04/05/assigning-wikipedia-in-a-us-history-survey/
He's teaching his students how to write on Wikipedia such that their stuff will actually stick around.
Academics learning how to massively collaborate effectively. We need more of this.
- d.
on 4/16/09 3:44 PM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://clioweb.org/2009/04/05/assigning-wikipedia-in-a-us-history-survey/
He's teaching his students how to write on Wikipedia such that their stuff will actually stick around.
Academics learning how to massively collaborate effectively.
We have been collaborating very effectively for a very long time. The results are the substance of this encyclopedia.
We need more of this.
Then why, David, are academics, professionals and other experts in their fields still treated with such hostility in this Project?
Marc Riddell
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 4/16/09 3:44 PM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Academics learning how to massively collaborate effectively.
We have been collaborating very effectively for a very long time. The results are the substance of this encyclopedia.
It varies by field, but my experience (as an academic) isn't really along these lines. I've rarely seen successful collaborations between more than 2-3 professors, certainly not "massive". I mean, you don't usually see an entire Computer Science department working together; often, the people in the same sub-area don't even work together, depending on how closely their visions and personalities match. Of course, many academics "collaborate" with large labs of grad students, but that's a more hierarchical form of collaboration.
Of course you're right that the overall body of knowledge has come from a lot of people, so is collaboration of a sort. But it tends to more often be the form of big-chunk give and take, rather than pervasive massive collaboration. Someone will write a journal article; someone else will respond to it or build on it; and so on. But you won't often have 20 people working together to come up with a consensus journal article.
-Mark
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 4/16/09 3:44 PM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Academics learning how to massively collaborate effectively.
We have been collaborating very effectively for a very long time. The results are the substance of this encyclopedia.
on 4/16/09 8:07 PM, Delirium at delirium@hackish.org wrote:
It varies by field, but my experience (as an academic) isn't really along these lines. I've rarely seen successful collaborations between more than 2-3 professors, certainly not "massive". I mean, you don't usually see an entire Computer Science department working together; often, the people in the same sub-area don't even work together, depending on how closely their visions and personalities match. Of course, many academics "collaborate" with large labs of grad students, but that's a more hierarchical form of collaboration.
Of course you're right that the overall body of knowledge has come from a lot of people, so is collaboration of a sort. But it tends to more often be the form of big-chunk give and take, rather than pervasive massive collaboration. Someone will write a journal article; someone else will respond to it or build on it; and so on. But you won't often have 20 people working together to come up with a consensus journal article.
I was startled by the statement, "Academics learning how to massively collaborate effectively". It sounded like we were just getting the hang of it.
You are right, Mark, it does vary by field; and the various disciplines within a field. In my own field of Clinical Psychology/Psychotherapy a great deal of collaboration has been occurring through conferences, meet-ups and snail-mail mailing lists for a great many years (yes, I go a long way back :-)). That is one of the major ways the field has developed. Now even more collaboration is taking place thanks to the internet. I am a part of a group of psychs who share ideas, theories, techniques and case studies on an ongoing collaborative basis. And I learn something new every time.
Marc Riddell
Marc Riddell wrote:
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 4/16/09 3:44 PM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Academics learning how to massively collaborate effectively.
We have been collaborating very effectively for a very long time. The results are the substance of this encyclopedia.
on 4/16/09 8:07 PM, Delirium at delirium@hackish.org wrote:
It varies by field, but my experience (as an academic) isn't really along these lines. I've rarely seen successful collaborations between more than 2-3 professors, certainly not "massive". I mean, you don't usually see an entire Computer Science department working together; often, the people in the same sub-area don't even work together, depending on how closely their visions and personalities match. Of course, many academics "collaborate" with large labs of grad students, but that's a more hierarchical form of collaboration.
Of course you're right that the overall body of knowledge has come from a lot of people, so is collaboration of a sort. But it tends to more often be the form of big-chunk give and take, rather than pervasive massive collaboration. Someone will write a journal article; someone else will respond to it or build on it; and so on. But you won't often have 20 people working together to come up with a consensus journal article.
I was startled by the statement, "Academics learning how to massively collaborate effectively". It sounded like we were just getting the hang of it.
<speaking as an ex-academic> Depending on the subject, delegation and team-work are understood quite well in academia. The scale tends to be controlled (fields tend to split into subfields with of the order of 100 people who are actually prepared to read each other's stuff, listen to technical talks, and so on). Massive as in 1000s doesn't go down that well, in fact. Free-form (as in wikis) seems very odd, at least in the light of traditional "guild" criteria of who gets taken seriously.
Mark, in my opinion, is closer to it than Marc. The historian in the subject line seems to understand the requirements quite well for the assignments: write a decently-referenced short piece that looks like it's on the same planet as the Manual of Style, and then the "collaborative" issues (others editing your stuff) should be manageable.
So-called "hostility" to experts is a troublesome one to make stick, in my experience. A small fraction of experts show themselves to be out of touch with the aims of the project, by the way they edit (incurably). More, I'm sure, just don't enjoy the editing: these people probably want a ratchet for content that doesn't exist (flagged revs could come closer). We have genuine expertise showing itself every day in editing on the site, largely unobtrusively.</speaking>
Charles