[WikiEN-l] Citizendium dead?

[Marc Riddell]

> Marc Riddell wrote:
>> And, on not-so-obscure websites, where there is a clear - and acute -
>> academiphobia present.
>> 
>> on 4/23/10 10:31 AM, Charles Matthews at charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com
wrote:

> I can show you the academic mathematicians editing, if you like. It's
> worth analysing the "black legend" that Wikipedia hates academics,
> though. Fred's comment "Serious academics are knocking down big bucks
> and writing books" is partly wrong. It would apply to, say, [[Niall
> Ferguson]], though it must be said that his reputation has taken
> something of a hit recently. It would not apply to academics who are in
> academia because money is low on their list of priorities (yes, these
> guys are definitely not normal). It would not apply to academics who
> enjoy intellectual work, while writing books is mainly work work. It
> seems to me that we get many graduate students editing: now why would
> these people be at the same time academiphobic, and putting themselved
> into straitened circumstance to hammer on the door of an academic career?
> 
> Having interacted with a couple of the more high-profile academics who
> have run into serious trouble on WP, I think I know the conditions that
> cause the trouble (roughly speaking, a lack of acceptance that a website
> is going to have policies and is entitled to have them, quite
> indepedently of the eminence of someone who would like to turn pages to
> other uses). I believe there must be many more cases of "I think what
> you're doing is not that interesting" from academics, than such
> trainwrecks. I believe the attitude we have to credentials is relatively
> sensible - typically a doctorate doesn't qualify anyone to pontificate
> over more than a small area.
> 
> And the clear blue water between WP and CZ is not necessarily
> disadvantageous to us. They reportedly have some issues with fringe
> science being supported by their hierarchy, to the extent that it could
> be an embarassment to dislodge it. What WP certainly has is a
> disrespectfulness for the person set against a respect for the
> referencing of what they submit. I'm yet to be convinced that that is a
> wrong decision. It certainly beats the other way round.
> 
The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks. Stick to numbers, Charles,
the human equation clearly eludes you.

MR