This reads like a radical anti-egalitarian manifesto by some young Internet-based firebrand. Wikipedia is way cool! Universities are dead institutions walking! We'll all learn off the web! Social networks will replace campuses! You know the sort of thing:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/opinion-analysis/stand-and-...
Then I got to the end and m`y jaw dropped when I saw what the author did for a living. (Try to read the article without skipping to the end.)
So. What do we do to distinguish experts from non-experts when we no longer even have credentials as a marker of expertise? (e.g. there's not a vast reserve of commercial positions for pure philosophers.)
- d.
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 3:35 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
This reads like a radical anti-egalitarian manifesto by some young Internet-based firebrand. Wikipedia is way cool! Universities are dead institutions walking! We'll all learn off the web! Social networks will replace campuses! You know the sort of thing:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/opinion-analysis/stand-and-...
Then I got to the end and m`y jaw dropped when I saw what the author did for a living. (Try to read the article without skipping to the end.)
So. What do we do to distinguish experts from non-experts when we no longer even have credentials as a marker of expertise? (e.g. there's not a vast reserve of commercial positions for pure philosophers.)
- d.
Crowd-sourced reputations! We list all the people who want to be experts, and let Wikimedians vote them up or down! Kind of like academic "Hot or Not."
Crowd-sourced reputations! We list all the people who want to be experts, and let Wikimedians vote them up or down! Kind of like academic "Hot or Not."
Something like Ebay would actually make sense. Yes, seriously.
Otherwise the article irritated me in that once again it cited the badly flawed 'Nature' study. Once again, look at the page here
http://toolserver.org/~enwp10/bin/list2.fcgi?run=yes&projecta=Philosophy...
which is Wikipedia's own estimate of how good the most important philosophy articles are. (There are actually about 50 most important articles that the list omits, but never mind).
On 12 October 2010 20:54, Peter Damian peter.damian@btinternet.com wrote:
Otherwise the article irritated me in that once again it cited the badly flawed 'Nature' study.
And it didn't irritate you that this is a vice-chancellor saying these things, with an aim to making you pretty much redundant? (Vice-chancellors are not picked for their fluffy nature and goodwill to academics who don't pull in large sums in grants.)
- d.
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 13:56, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 October 2010 20:54, Peter Damian peter.damian@btinternet.com wrote:
Otherwise the article irritated me in that once again it cited the badly flawed 'Nature' study.
And it didn't irritate you that this is a vice-chancellor saying these things, with an aim to making you pretty much redundant? (Vice-chancellors are not picked for their fluffy nature and goodwill to academics who don't pull in large sums in grants.)
It's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance all over again. Do you want to pass exams or do you want to learn?
----- Original Message ----- From: "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 8:56 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Expertise and Wikipedia redux
On 12 October 2010 20:54, Peter Damian peter.damian@btinternet.com wrote:
Otherwise the article irritated me in that once again it cited the badly flawed 'Nature' study.
And it didn't irritate you that this is a vice-chancellor saying these things, with an aim to making you pretty much redundant? (Vice-chancellors are not picked for their fluffy nature and goodwill to academics who don't pull in large sums in grants.)
No - if you think it through it is not making me pretty much redundant.
----- Original Message ----- From: "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 8:56 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Expertise and Wikipedia redux
And it didn't irritate you that this is a vice-chancellor saying these things, with an aim to making you pretty much redundant? (Vice-chancellors are not picked for their fluffy nature and goodwill to academics who don't pull in large sums in grants.)
Let me reply in more detail. Will projects like Wikipedia affect employment in academia? Discuss.
1. One business of academia is research, i.e. the production of primary sources. But use of primary sources is forbidden in Wikipedia, so no change there.
2. Another business is teaching, and the awarding of degrees. Given the choice between a graduate of one of the better universities, and a graduate of Wikipedia, what would you choose? No change there either.
3. Some academics produce material intended for wider publication than the journals and specialised outlets - basic introductions, popular works (Russell made his money from History of Western Philosophy). Wikipedia is allowed to *use* secondary sources. But it can't *produce* them. That is also forbidden by policy - see e.g. WP:RS and the other policy 'pillars'. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. No change there either.
4. So who is Wikipedia putting out of business? There are two classes of writers for encyclopedias. These are the (rather poorly paid) recently graduated staff who compile sources, work with the specialised databases that collect together all the comprehensive information for the 'factual' articles. They are supported by adminstrative and clerical staff. It is this class of people that Wikipedia is putting out of a job. The other class are those who have a specialism and who write the 'high level' summaries of a whole subject, the big articles that tie the encyclopedia together. These are, or were paid somewhat more. These probably are losing out also. But you see the cost. Wikipedia is good at compiling lists and basic facts. But at articles which require a thread, a conspectus, an overall summary of a big, general, subject, it is hopeless. (As I've pointed out here a few times).
In summary, Wikipedia is hardly making a dent. Where it is making a dent, it is by cheapening the product. No win all round.
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Peter Damian peter.damian@btinternet.com wrote:
... In summary, Wikipedia is hardly making a dent. Where it is making a dent, it is by cheapening the product. No win all round.
Broadening, not cheapening.
----- Original Message ----- From: "George Herbert" george.herbert@gmail.com To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 11:44 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Expertise and Wikipedia redux
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Peter Damian peter.damian@btinternet.com wrote:
... In summary, Wikipedia is hardly making a dent. Where it is making a dent, it is by cheapening the product. No win all round.
Broadening, not cheapening.
Broadening AND cheapening, as I said :)
Peter,
Whoever you might be, that's one heck of a post. Congratulations.
Want to get together on Meta? I have only two more months to go on my very first block there.
Maybe we can come up with a proposal for a multilingual Wikipedia for banned users.
I wonder if Larry Sanger would like to join too.
From one banned user to another.
Sincerely,
Virgilio A. P. Machado (Vapmachado) (a.k.a. Public enemy number one of the pt.wiki, working on his way up in Meta)
At 19:24 14-10-2010, you wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 8:56 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Expertise and Wikipedia redux
And it didn't irritate you that this is a vice-chancellor saying these things, with an aim to making you pretty much redundant? (Vice-chancellors are not picked for their fluffy nature and goodwill to academics who don't pull in large sums in grants.)
Let me reply in more detail. Will projects like Wikipedia affect employment in academia? Discuss.
- One business of academia is research, i.e. the production of primary
sources. But use of primary sources is forbidden in Wikipedia, so no change there.
- Another business is teaching, and the awarding of degrees. Given the
choice between a graduate of one of the better universities, and a graduate of Wikipedia, what would you choose? No change there either.
- Some academics produce material intended for wider publication than the
journals and specialised outlets - basic introductions, popular works (Russell made his money from History of Western Philosophy). Wikipedia is allowed to *use* secondary sources. But it can't *produce* them. That is also forbidden by policy - see e.g. WP:RS and the other policy 'pillars'. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. No change there either.
- So who is Wikipedia putting out of business? There are two classes of
writers for encyclopedias. These are the (rather poorly paid) recently graduated staff who compile sources, work with the specialised databases that collect together all the comprehensive information for the 'factual' articles. They are supported by adminstrative and clerical staff. It is this class of people that Wikipedia is putting out of a job. The other class are those who have a specialism and who write the 'high level' summaries of a whole subject, the big articles that tie the encyclopedia together. These are, or were paid somewhat more. These probably are losing out also. But you see the cost. Wikipedia is good at compiling lists and basic facts. But at articles which require a thread, a conspectus, an overall summary of a big, general, subject, it is hopeless. (As I've pointed out here a few times).
In summary, Wikipedia is hardly making a dent. Where it is making a dent, it is by cheapening the product. No win all round.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org