[Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

[Robert S. Horning]

On 09/19/2010 06:48 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>> the issue is not
>>      
>>> restricted
>>> to the English Wikipedia.
>>>        
>>
>> Let's assume there's a problem. What's your plan of action?
>> How does
>> it differ from the usual way of dealing with these issues
>> (getting
>> interested people together, setting up a wikiproject and
>> getting to
>> work)?
>>      
> The problems in this area are
>
> (1) demanding subject matter, requiring some familiarity with the topic area to be able to contribute effectively
> (2) the relative scarcity of editors who have prior knowledge in these areas.
>
> So "throwing more editors at the Humanities problem" through a WikiProject may not work in this case. Getting students and academics involved might.
>
> As reported in the press, there is an ongoing WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's Public Policy coverage, through collaboration with university professors and their students. It is funded by a $1.2 million Stanton Foundation grant.
>
> http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Public_Policy_Initiative
> http://blog.wikimedia.org/blog/2010/05/11/wikipedia-heads-to-school/
>
> The Foundation has said that it hopes this is only the first of many such collaborations with universities. Now, how do you go about setting a project like this in motion?
>    
I'm not entirely sure how accurate this is, so I'm just making a raw 
conjecture here that is completely unsupported by facts other than 
perhaps by general observations:

Is it possible that the problem with the humanities-related articles on 
Wikipedia has more to do with the lack of an existing culture of 
"copyleft" or public domain collaboration?  It has taken literally 
decades of effort that go back even a couple of decades earlier of 
similar efforts to put together what is today the "open source movement" 
that has produced things like Linux, the GNU tools, and software like 
Apache.  Wikipedia is a product of this environment too, where many of 
those who have participated in developing open source software don't 
hesitate to at least add a couple of paragraphs to Wikipedia.

I also don't see any sort of social stigma to having a very experienced 
and skilled rocket engineer write or correct a Wikipedia article about a 
particular model of a rocket.  In fact that may be a resume enhancement 
if you can point to a Wikipedia article that you have written and 
brought to Featured Article status.  Heck, most engineering managers 
would be impressed that you can write a coherent sentence in the first 
place, much less get it "published" even in a forum like Wikipedia.

Needless to say, articles like the Boeing CST-100 article is very much 
up to date and shows regular edits where the quality of the article is 
constantly improving.  If you've never heard about this spacecraft, it 
would be a good one to read BTW.  Not "Featured Article" quality, but an 
example of a new article where the collaborative nature of Wikipedia is 
its strength and where there isn't a lack of quality editors 
participating.  The first edit on this article was just a year ago and 
for what is known is an exhaustive article on the topic.

When I see those involved with the Humanities, it is a very different 
environment.  I merely mentioned to one historian that I was writing a 
Wikipedia article and wanted to ask him a relatively minor question that 
could easily be answered.... I was just trying to find the source for 
some information he wrote on a website to see if there might be some 
additional information I could use in a related Wikipedia article.  
Instead, he unleashed on me how I was wasting my time and how I should 
stay away from Wikipedia if I knew what was good for me. On top of that, 
he mentioned that as a professor he would automatically flunk a student 
out of his class (not just give an "F" on the assignment) if he found a 
student even consulting Wikipedia for an initial overview of a topic.  
There was that much hostility to the project.

BTW, I agree that Wikipedia shouldn't be cited as a source, but I don't 
think the Encyclopedia Britannica should be cited either.  There has 
been plenty of ink spilled on tis topic that I need not go further.  The 
use of Wikipedia to find good sources for a topic, however, should be 
something emphasized.  Links to secondary and primary sources is 
something that ought to be a strength of Wikipedia.

The problem, to me, is even fostering a collaborative and copyleft meme 
among those who work in the humanities.  This is the problem with 
humanities related articles on Wikipedia, where it is a symptom of a 
much larger cultural problem with this particular academic discipline 
rather than something specific to just Wikipedia.  I don't think there 
is a "magic bullet" here but I do think it is something that needs 
attention.

This also would seem to me as something that will get corrected over 
time... as long as we are not talking a mere timespan of just five or 
six years but are looking forward in a generation or two.  There is a 
generation growing up with Wikipedia, and when those kids get into 
college, start to study the humanities and see that Wikipedia is very 
weak on those topics but goes into incredible depth on topics like 
Palladium, they are going to start writing those other articles that is 
currently the complaint about this thread.  I don't think it is 
something to necessarily blow millions of dollars upon, but it is 
something that should be raised or discussed in academic forums where 
appropriate.  It also is a generational issue.

-- Robert Horning
____________________________________________________________
Refinance Now 3.7% FIXED
$160,000 Mortgage for $547/mo. FREE. No Obligation. Get 4 Quotes!
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3241/4c969c472bda2c807d8st03vuc