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(a)gmail.com>
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
<foundation-l(a)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.