[Foundation-l] Participation of intellectual professions

[Ray Saintonge]

Noein wrote:
> 1. I just had a short chat with [[Erik Orsenna]], a member of the
> [[Académie française]] who "loves to learn and pass along knowledge".
> He's also interested in the adventure of knowledge and in the democratic
> processes and appreciate being able to tap into the knowledge of the
> five french Académies he has access to.
> I asked him if he was aware of Wikipedia and of its participative
> nature. He did.
> I asked him why the Academicians didn't participate more and share their
> knowledge on it.
> He said that they have no time, that they're busy writing their books.
>   

This is completely understandable.  They're working where they feel most 
comfortable.  It's not a criticism of Wikipedia.  We should not take our 
inability to draw in more of these people as a failure.
> 2. In parallel, I had several conversations with university Professors
> showing their reticence, distrust or hostility about the free
> encyclopedia. They discredit the articles when speaking to their students.
>   

Mostly through ignorance, and an inability to view Wikipedia articles in 
a clear perspective.  It will still take years to overcome this, and for 
them to recognize the place of Wikipedia in the learning chain.
> 3. High level physicists also stay away from it. (for example most of
> the theoretical information about [[quasars]] comes from the 1960's.
> Current information on the net is frequently only available through
> pay-to-read sites.)
>   

The pay-to-read sites are contrary to the notion that copyright is there 
"to promote the useful arts."  Universities can subscribe because they 
can spread the cost over an entire student body; this is generally 
impossible at the level of the individual. If he subscribes to the most 
important journals in his field it will not be practical for him to 
subscribe to publications of secondary interest to which he will only 
occasionally need to refer. The amateur working from his home computer 
is, by virtue of intellectual property laws, relegated to using obsolete 
material for his writing.
> The interpretation:
> It seems that the traditional way of handling knowledge is treating it
> as a good, that is, a resource with a monetary value and ownership.
> One invests money, time and efforts to obtain it. People who made a
> career out of it want to recover their costs and make benefits out of
> it. Some like the prestige of their exclusive knowledge or the authority
> it confers.
>   

Prestige aside, the commodification of knowledge hinders its growth.  
There are expenses connected with generating knowledge. Amateurs support 
their research by having an outside real job.  The economic model that 
will sustain the free market of ideas has yet to be developed.
> The consequences:
> A. Some feel threatened by the wikipedia model. They don't want it to
> succeed. They perceive it would question their role, their power and
> their way of earning money.
>   

Just like mediæval guilds!


Ec