In a message dated 9/27/2010 7:17:42 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
nawrich(a)gmail.com writes:
> 1. No one is accountable, nor does anyone feel responsible, for the
> accuracy of Wikipedia articles, since they are unsigned and have no
> official authors. >>
----------
The authors can be viewed in the history. They are accountable to the
extent of introducing spam, nonsense, and graffitti. They are not accountable
for example, by using a source which is quite silly or ignorant. Those sort
of additions merely get eventually removed. And by eventually, I've found
silliness of this quality that has persisted for over a year.
-----------------
>
> 2. There is virtually no incentive to work on them.
>
> a. Doing so is extremely time-consuming. People who write traditional
> encyclopedia articles also expend a lot of time. However, they are
> typically repaid in one or more of three ways: with money, with
> recognition or prestige, and with the chance to gently support what
> they see as the right view of the subject. However:
> b. One is paid nothing to write or edit Wikipedia articles.
> c. One gets no recognition or prestige, since the articles are unsigned.
> d. One gets no chance to forward what one sees as the correct views,
> because of the NPOV policy.
> e. Finally, one can't even link to one's own relevant papers on the
> subject, since there seems to be an unofficial policy to automatically
> delete such links. So the deal is: spend hour upon hour doing web
> editing, and you can be sure of getting nothing in return. >>
-------------------------
Oh the "right" view. How Victorian. Can we not say that view which is
"supported by the evidence" ? The "right" view sounds so Ivory Towerish to me.
Authors do get recognition, just not in the same way.
The "Neutral Point of View" is not to support the "correct view" (shudder)
but rather to support that view which *you* as the self-proclaimed or
university-proclaimed expert can.... get ready, get set.... SUPPORT. That's the
very point. If you cannot support your view with evidence, than you are not
an expert. Rip up your degree. Or else maybe, you are just not a teacher.
That Wikipedia, is forcing some so-called experts to re-evaluate their base
knowledge is a good thing, not a bad one. If we can shake the very
foundations of the university system, than good. I'm very willing to see the
entire ediface crumble to the ground under our ceaseless onslaught. Viva la
Revolution !
And why would a person want to link to their "own relevant papers" anyway?
Are we here to act as your promoter and publicist? No we are not. If your
colleages cite YOUR papers, than good. You will get your recognition. If
they do not, then guess what? Now, go away.
---------------------------------
>
> 3. Genuine experts in a subject are usually people who have other
> demands on their time--often professors, for example, who could spend
> their time working with their own students or doing research in their
> field that they'll get credit for. So just thinking of these factors a
> priori, it seems unlikely that many experts would contribute to
> Wikipedia. >>
----------------------
And yet they do, go figure. Some experts contribute, once they learn the
rules here. Some do not, once they learn the rules here.
And the problem is? The same problem which has exited since 10,000 BC.
Some people are gentle collaborators, others are wild bulls.
----------------------------
>
> 4. It's true that if someone sees an error in an article they can fix
> it. But it's also true that others can introduce new errors. And the
> people most likely to see errors and not introduce new ones, are the
> experts who seem to have no incentive to contribute. --owl23211:58, 3
> January 2006 (UTC) >>
------------------
I am a self-proclaimed expert in genealogy. I contribute mainly when I see
smallish errors of commission or omission or undue weight that I can fix
within a minute or so. Sometimes these gives me incentive to write more-full
articles on the same or similar topics elsewhere.
The main benefit of the project to my current work, is to find connections
and sources that I can review directly.
Personally I think that the vast majority of articles which a
person-on-the-street might assume would be in a printed encyclopedia are already in ours.
What we have left is a lot of margin where scribbled notes might be better
as more-full articles. If anyone has the time and inclination.
I certainly would not want to see any relaxation of our standards in order
to entice experts. Quite the opposite. I'd like to see tightening of the
standards so as to prevent silly comments from filtering into articles like
"Her great-great-great-great-grandfather was the Earl of March".... pointless
and unencyclopedic.
Probably the method of flagged revisions should prevent that.
W.J.
