Charles Matthews wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote
The problem is that it is not reasonable to trust academics as any thoughtful and observant person who attended an institution of higher learning knows. Most academics have some axe to grind.
Correct as far as it goes. But more to the point is that until WP editing looks good on a CV, no academic worth having will give it the attention.
Actually, I don't think the tipping point will be when someone can claim Wikipedia work among their academic publications. Rather, people will pay attention when they find information being disseminated from Wikipedia that they disagree with. Academics will go to considerable lengths to refute what they consider misinformation when it is propagated in the forums they respect - just grab a few academic journals and scan through the letters to the editor.
--Michael Snow
Michael Snow wrote:
Charles Matthews wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote
The problem is that it is not reasonable to trust academics as any thoughtful and observant person who attended an institution of higher learning knows. Most academics have some axe to grind.
Correct as far as it goes. But more to the point is that until WP editing looks good on a CV, no academic worth having will give it the attention.
Actually, I don't think the tipping point will be when someone can claim Wikipedia work among their academic publications. Rather, people will pay attention when they find information being disseminated from Wikipedia that they disagree with. Academics will go to considerable lengths to refute what they consider misinformation when it is propagated in the forums they respect - just grab a few academic journals and scan through the letters to the editor.
We already see that happening regularly - the hallmark is that some anon will descend on the article, add a large amount of technical and detailed content with references but not in the usual WP style, then leave a snippy note on the talk page about how much they had to correct. 1/2 :-)
Stan
Michael Snow wrote
Academics will go to considerable lengths to refute what they consider misinformation when it is propagated in the forums they respect - just grab a few academic journals and scan through the letters to the editor.
True in some cases - an article in "Nature" for example. I should probably have qualified my point. We know that academics, those with higher degree and graduate students are amongst the most valuable contributors (alongside others who are not in any way academics). It is helpful to isolate what you could call 'pro bono' work to discuss. That is, one can consider that idealised situation of an academic authority in a field sitting down to write an article for WP, or edit into shape a page, with the same seriousness, fact- and reference-checking, and commitment as she or he would apply to a survey written for a learned journal. Well, that is what is unlikely to happen on a wiki, however prominent.
Charles