[WikiEN-l] A future for Nupedia? Academic degrees have real usefulness

[Ray Saintonge]

Robert wrote:

>There is an evident distrust towards academic degrees here,
>and it doesn't help us. It seems to stem from a
>misunderstanding of egalitarianism that many Wikipedia
>contributors have. Some people seem to think that
>egalitarianism means that all people are equally competant
>to review an article. This is just as true as saying that
>all people are equally tall, and that all food in a
>supermarket is equally nutritious.  In other words, the
>proposition is violently false.
>
Violently???

It's not the degrees themselves that provoke distrust.  Sometimes it's a 
close-minded attitude that plays a major role in the student/teacher 
relationship.  That attitude is even more pronounced in secondary 
schools where teachers can often appear unapproachable.  The impression 
that that leaves on the student is often carried by them into 
post-secondary learning..  Many professions promote a closed shop 
mentality that relies on the economic premise that restricting the 
supply of professionals will increase the amount that those already 
there can command for their services.  They cannot afford to allow 
groups that will significantly compete for their share of the revenue.  
This does not mean that every single professional engages in this 
practice; a lot of rank-and-file professionals undoubtedly recognize the 
problem, and some of those have been very supportive of the wiki way.

I strongly believe that critical thinking is one of the most important 
things that can be taught in schools, but that competes with the 
tradition of the teacher as an authority figure.  Teachers need to be 
questioned at all levels, by kindergarteners as much as by doctoral 
candidates.  There was a comment I heard in some TV news program in the 
last few days, but I can't quite remember whether it was in the context 
of US foreign policy or education; it is equally applicable to both.  
Respect is best achieved when it is commanded rather than demanded.  
Within a military structure an officer who leads by example commands 
respect; one who insists on "pulling rank" demands respect.

In our own realm I know that we have had academically degreed 
contributors, but among those the ones who do the greatest service are 
the ones who make no virtue of their credentials.  Perhaps we don't even 
know exactly who they are.  In contrast those who demand respect because 
they have Ph. D.'s tend to breed resentment.  They too often substitute 
the authority of their degrees for the authority of academic rigour.

Equality of rights does not imply equality of competence.  The rights of 
all Wikipedians to review all articles should remain, but having made a 
personal choice of a very limited number of articles to review we are 
all equally faced with the same standard of verification.  For the 
career academic it is a standard that is more easily met, because he has 
more tools at his fingertips.

>I'd honestly be willing to bet my life that a dozen Ph.D.s
>in Physics will produce better editorial oversight and
>corrections than a dozen self-selected Internet junkies,
>when it comes to reviewing Physics articles.  I'd honestly
>be willing to bet my life that a dozen Ph.D.s in American
>Literature will produce better editorial oversight and
>corrections than a dozen self-selected Internet junkies,
>when it comes to reviewing American literature articles.
>
Spoken this way it is an expression of pure arrogance.  If the "internet 
junkie" is able to support his research it is just as worthwhile.  There 
are many people out there whose passion for a narrow subject area makes 
them better informed about it than the academics.  You're probably right 
about your numbers game of the dozen reviewers, but so what?

>Accepting the fact that some people have studied a lot and
>have earned an academic degree does not prevent anyone else
>from contributing. It does not prevent anyone else from
>offering corrections or edits.  It isn't even
>anti-egalitarian.  True egalitarianism only means that all
>people have a right to study a subject, and to try and
>become experts in said subject.  It does *not* mean that
>all people are already experts on said subject!
>  
>
What about the people who have studied just as much but have NOT earned 
the academic degree?  If it were workable a good rule might be to forbid 
reviewers from saying if they have a degree.

Ec