On Feb 5, 2005, at 7:24 AM, David Gerard wrote:
Lars Aronsson (lars(a)aronsson.se) [050205 09:24]:
I think there is a good deal of substance in
Larry Sanger's and Robert
McHenry's criticism. They are correct as long as they describe the
problem they see. However, the outsider's perceived anti-elitism
doesn't necessarily originate from an intentional anti-elitism in the
community. And since it isn't intentional, it is quite impossible to
"abandon" this anti-elitism, so Larry fails provide a solution. He
suggests a fork of the project. Yes, maybe he should try this.
He specifically didn't suggest a fork, as far as I can see - he wanted
to
change *this* project's working methods.
Given how wikipedia is structured, anyone with the server power can
fork anytime they are willing to sponge down the material. And as for
anti-elitism, it is has POVs too, often notable and documentable, and
which should be present.
A great deal of the thrash on this issue is because in Wikipedia one
can "look inside the sausage factory" and see the infighting and
arguing that goes on. One can't see this in academia. Imagine if every
academic journal had a section after each article of all of the drama
processing that went into the paper - academia wouldn't quite look as
shiny. Or do we need to bring up Charles Van Doren's role in the 21
scandal back in the 20th century?
The truth of much of Larry's criticism is that it is annoying for
someone who knows the material to have to fight with people who don't,
and wikipedia's rules are not currently structured for the impatient
academic, who views the world as he glides into class, dumps his POV,
and obliterates poor dissenting undergraduates with withering
objections and a few points off on class participation. In fact, even
fairly patient people have levels of "wikistress" which are probably
higher than is sustainable.
Improvements do need to be made, many of our mechanisms are not well
implemented and are frustrating to deal with. We still need to
integrate citations into our text in a more thoroughly wiki manner (and
here I will insert a crass plug for getting more people involved with
wikicite which would do just that), we do need to improve how we handle
disputes, and we do need to improve a host of other details.
Sanger's points do have merit, however, before taking measures of the
kind he proposes, we should continue to place faith in the mechanism of
participatory dialectic that has produced more than most people would
have thought possible in a very short time.