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

[Jens Ropers]

> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 16:31:37 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Robert <rkscience100 at yahoo.com>

Again, I think we're looking at a fundamental misunderstanding here:

I DID NOT and I am not trying to ''exclude'' academics. We need  
academics. The higher qualified the better. The more of them choose to  
join our review club the better.
("review club" proposed here:  
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-September/ 
030521.html)

Nobody (not me, anyway) has been, or is contesting that academic  
individuals, their knowledge and the academic education system have  
real usefulness. Again, the more academics join us, the better. The  
only thing I am lobbying you all against is that we (a) make degrees a  
requirement of some sort at any stage in the process and/or (b)  
automatically value input from an academic more than input from a  
non-academic. I still think it is obvious (to me anyway) that ''most''  
of the time academics will prevail with their views.
''But they will do so '''based on the merit of what they say'' and NOT  
based on the recognition of their title.''

Currently, no contributor is allowed to argue: "But I am a senior  
professor of quantum dynamics, so I win and you shut up!" It is VERY  
important that this remains so. Yes, there should be academics in the  
review club, and no, they should not ever even mention their titles.  
'''They should converse as EQUALS with all other fellow reviewers.'''  
No one, not even a professor of quantum dynamics, should be allowed to  
settle a dispute with a reference to their prior achievement (ie.  
title, etc.). They should thus have ONE vote, just as everybody else.  
This will not stop their valid views from prevailing.

Giving everybody the chance to truly converse as equals will bring out  
the best in both academics and laymen alike.

(NB: My idea to ban even mentioning degrees is merely a ''safeguard  
against self-censorship'' of non-academics. Because most non-academics  
will indeed "shut up" if they notice the other person to have a title  
-- out of exaggerated awe, even if they have perfectly points to make.)

Titles or degrees shouldn't be a requirement for joining ANY chapter of  
the review club either. Qualified academics will ''automatically'' join  
the relevant review boards. We do ''not'' have to look for "experts  
with titles" in any way. We do ''not'' have to expressly set out to  
install a quota of accredited academics into the review boards. Given  
the mere establishment of ''sensible, disciplined and democratic''  
fora, academics will join them in large numbers.

And they will be more productive there if we allow ANY interested  
individuals to join as well, with requirements of ''constructiveness,  
not of prior achievement'' in fields of knowledge work. Every parent  
knows that it's children's questions that teach us the most.

> A stable version of Wikipedia has a questionable future if
> it does not rely on people with academic degrees as a very
> imporant part of our editorial review process.

We should continue to rely on ''people'' (a fair share of whom happen  
to hold academic degrees). We should not rely on "degrees" per se.

> Anything
> less will result it in being considered one step above "fan
> fiction" by high-school, college and university professors.

Yes, outside esteem is an issue, because the traditional system of  
knowledge review (see above link) is so well established. But again, as  
mentioned here:  
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-September/030552.html  
, outside and Wikipedian academics will, in time, do that work for us:  
Just as those academics already in our midst, they will increasingly  
come to recognize our value and '''become opinion leaders''', telling  
those who need their truths "straight from the horse's mouth" that we  
really ARE ''all that''.

> There is an evident distrust towards academic degrees here,
> and it doesn't help us.

No there isn't. Academics are welcome. '''I just want to avoid building  
automatic bias towards opinions of degree holders back into a  
revolutionarily unbiased system (the Wikipedia).'''

> 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.

Well, I don't believe that.
But everybody should be given an equal shot at contributing to the  
review process. Any less well thought out views will just not get very  
far. BUT: --this is important to comprehend-- mostly less competent  
people intermittently have very valid and well thought out  
contributions to make. Under the traditional system of knowledge  
review, those are almost always lost.

> 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.

moot point

> 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.

What I believe you're missing is that the "Internet junkies" contain a  
fair share of Ph.D.s -- and they will ''automatically'' find their way  
into the relevant review boards.

> Accepting the fact that some people have studied a lot and
> have earned an academic degree does not prevent anyone else
> from contributing.

That's exactly what I seek to ensure, both with the edit process AND,  
crucially, with the next generation of our review process.

> 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!
>
>
> Robert (RK)

Thanks and regards,
Jens Ropers

PS:
Selected related posts (mostly by me ;-) :
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-September/030496.html
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-September/030523.html
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-September/030519.html
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-September/030506.html
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-September/030507.html
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-September/030521.html  
(same link as above)
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-September/030551.html
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-September/030552.html  
(same link as above)