[Foundation-l] Participation of intellectual professions
I see a number of issues holding professionals back from contributing: 1) Some do not realize that it is possible to edit Wikipedia ( I hear this at work when people ask me how I became an editor ). Maybe we should advertise the fact that yes you too can edit Wikipedia. 2) Many are just not interested. In medicine we have had issues with getting physicians to do continuing medical education. Many just want to do their job and that is it. Contributing to Wikipedia is work. However students are required to do work and I think this is one of the populations which would be easiest to attract. McGill University may have started a Wikipedia club. Promoting these may be useful. 3) A great deal of competition to Wikipedia has sprung up such as Radiopeadia ( which does not allow commercial use of images ), Medpedia ( which only allow professionals to contribute ), and Wikidocs ( which has more technical content ). Each addressing some perceived drawback in Wikipedia. None however has received the viewership of Wikipedia but of course cuts into the pool of available volunteers. Medpedia has partnered with a number of very respected Universities. I think we could learn something for each of these formats such as clarification around image copyright and that CC does not mean you lose the rights to it, greater exposure of the professionals who already contribute, etc. 4) Wikipedia has received negative press in professional publications. We need to address these negativities most of which are false. Currently a number of us at WikiProject Med are writing a paper for publication promoting Wikipedia as a health care information resource. Other subject areas should do the same. -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, B.Sc. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Participation of intellectual professions
I see a number of issues holding professionals back from contributing: 1) Some do not realize that it is possible to edit Wikipedia ( I hear this at work when people ask me how I became an editor ). Maybe we should advertise the fact that yes you too can edit Wikipedia. This, I think, probably accounts for most who might participate but don't. Senior academics write books and journal articles. They don't fool around on the internet for hours like we do. 2) Many are just not interested. In medicine we have had issues with getting physicians to do continuing medical education. A high percentage of practicing physicians, about 50%, regularly consult Wikipedia and many do contribute. Which is not a surprising reaction to discovery of minor or major errors and omissions. I suspect it is precisely the ones who don't keep up adequately with their continuing education who are most likely to consult Wikipedia. (It is a lazy way of researching anything) Many just want to do their job and that is it. Contributing to Wikipedia is work. However students are required to do work and I think this is one of the populations which would be easiest to attract. McGill University may have started a Wikipedia club. Promoting these may be useful. Students are our core constituency. 3) A great deal of competition to Wikipedia has sprung up such as Radiopeadia ( which does not allow commercial use of images ), Medpedia ( which only allow professionals to contribute ), and Wikidocs ( which has more technical content ). Each addressing some perceived drawback in Wikipedia. None however has received the viewership of Wikipedia but of course cuts into the pool of available volunteers. Nearly all of us who have created alternative sites continue to participate on Wikipedia to some extent. Medpedia has partnered with a number of very respected Universities. I think we could learn something for each of these formats such as clarification around image copyright and that CC does not mean you lose the rights to it, greater exposure of the professionals who already contribute, etc. 4) Wikipedia has received negative press in professional publications. We need to address these negativities most of which are false. Currently a number of us at WikiProject Med are writing a paper for publication promoting Wikipedia as a health care information resource. Other subject areas should do the same. Yes, nearly always issues are raised which are off-point or ancient history. Just as a political campaign has a war room to respond to such press we should make a point of responding. David Gerard has done a great deal of this, particularly in the U.K. -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, B.Sc. Fred Bauder ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Participation of intellectual professions
This an interesting topic which ties in very well with others that I have been discussing in this list. Noein presented part of the problem. Dr. Goodman, with whom I had the pleasure of exchanging some comments before, added some more very important information. He mentions ignorants and fools. I have called them worse, but that's besides the point. What I find deplorable is the sorry state of cronyism and complicity so pervasive in several (but fortunately not all) Wikimedia projects that allows ignorants and fools to prevail. The spectacle of seeing someone with qualifications similar to those of the professors who are giving you so much grief in school is just too entertaining to pass. So is the spectacle of seeing a colleague that cannot tolerate the fools fail to work effectively in a WP environment. I am indeed a bit short on examples where the community has stand up to the ignorants and fools, in favor of the inexperienced expert or the well meaning do gooder. I'm sorry most of you are not enough knowledgeable of the Portuguese language to ever had been able to interfere in the abuse and travesty of proper procedure (It's impossible to call that justice. It will be too offensive to what justice is) that I and others have had to endure in the Portuguese Wikipedia. At least I never notice your participation there, but records and written testimonies of the abusive behavior I mention are abundant. To make things easy for the friendly intellectuals that usually post to this list, I'll give two examples for you to play with and have your fun: 1) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards%27_noticeboard/Archives/2010-04#Please_advise 2) http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Information_desk#Deletion_of_user_page Come on guys. Bring it on. Make my day. Sincerely, Virgilio A. P. Machado (Vapmachado) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Participation of intellectual professions
David Goodman wrote: The traditional academic system is based upon status differences between pupils and teachers. One of the problems is the reception they get--a great many experts do not take it kindly when they are challenged by the ignorant, and get no respect for their qualifications, or even negative comments about them. But there is no way of keeping WP open and preventing them from being subjected to this. It affects not just academic experts, but experts in all sorts of fields and knowledgeable amateurs also. You describe an attitude that has taken centuries to build up. Those who learned through deference teach deference. At best it will take several generations to overcome. Some experts can deal with it well, and a few have been known to go for years on WP without mentioning their academic status. Some have the art of explaining things to make them clear to anyone who is not willfully misunderstanding, and the patience to do it. These are the kind of people we need. Alas, the one's who cannot tolerate the fools are probably never going to be able to work effectively in a WP environment. The intolerant ones can easily be there because of their own inability to communicate their ideas. They may be brilliant researchers, but hopeless at explaining their results. Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Participation of intellectual professions
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 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Participation of intellectual professions
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 The premises: 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. 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. 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 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. 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. B. An expert who has synthesized after 40 years of dedicated studies most of the knowledge of his specific domain that is known to humanity will transmit it to a few persons only each year: a few dozens of students, a few dozens of other experts, and a few thousands of passionate readers who buy the vulgarization book. Thus, knowledge is controlled, reserved, limited, slowed down. It will take decades or centuries before the best of what we know reach everybody. The consequences if it were to change: With wikipedia, any expert could reach and teach millions of persons. In ten or twenty years, every literate person with internet access could use an interdisciplinary, edge-cutting database of knowledge for their diary reasoning. The knowledge and understanding of mankind could make giant leaps. Concluding: I think it is important to think how many of the intellectual profession don't collaborate and why. We should search if mechanisms involving the wikipedia and that would benefit their research are possible. We should even think economical models about knowledge that allow the profession to change, in the same way that it is happening with the free software, copyleft, Creative Commons and other alternative models. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMACAaAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6L47gH/ArEE/5fhrr47KwQ4FtkuBFh jQyjpM3QUIA5ewEsUBKTCH9GmfWGjsZFCai6At+0FZe8nvxBNZ4PU2/citTzZ1Yi g6e1K3+GN8hnIjPcoW5yg2Eo/znuUyJNoE7rJ0zZLHcs5QNBZbosua0XDdhQ98ji 6Hi9MJkbpIcg8J+Ut/lYZCBGSvD0s64s9Rsi51cVgMF3pitkP1j0h017qnA71d8g 6U7OQf8dtsstDaT0UsrdS9l4b1TrNWW2SUatGBruSemrdUScnpojbsqM9yvP9NSe q7zhKf5xPYvdvaa6DxfkKaijjslkxj9sg8efhjsqRyt13alFBF7YSR9aHO8GEz0= =/yTW -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Participation of intellectual professions
With wikipedia, any expert could reach and teach millions of persons. In ten or twenty years, every literate person with internet access could use an interdisciplinary, edge-cutting database of knowledge for their diary reasoning. The knowledge and understanding of mankind could make giant leaps. Yes, this is what we are up to, with or without help from experts. Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Participation of intellectual professions
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 28/05/2010 22:42, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote: 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.) Well, I am a university professor in physics and a Wikipedia administrator. There's a misunderstanding. Not surprising because I'm terrible with words. I'm glad you're here and I'm sure there are a lot like you. I'm expressing my surprise that there are so many reticences among the intellectual professions, at least in France and Argentina where I made my little personal investigation. I would naively expect a massive participation from them, on the supposition that they share a vocation for sharing knowledge and a passion to learn from others. And indeed some do. I have the impression, however, that they're a minority. Please correct me if I'm wrong. If it needs to be precised, I try to never communicate to impose personal convictions but to ask questions and provoke thoughts in the hope of deeper questions. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMAE6/AAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LszIIAJJ8upZ219OBGr3w6wbpp6CT 1SnTMVszCB7rEp0961AwM1oDgiNed/QTNtk5+nH8rtT4FXlMvGDA6Abx8CttQYlS ygDeRiHm2r6O0CsHWR6QrS+gKD3G4JkrdUUrSgFE0ZNyflpwUW0KB9Zhl/2gOXjY DrcCiTAdA8qAX/f4OabDJi9TE8NAR0yzuti196Z0k9rAQmbEAvX/UDjxJ7Cvr3Nu 8IVJ0LxG84tLwPDQ3iWE5E2N9S51uJiUrEK0qiKhp5KgD7T89ABKcz/JYpV5YKfV HJxe9QvPDIYbB5dcr66nYrfAbIq95fnMcITkJOuLEtfqeYffQFXZBTZYR4CA9Eg= =u1X4 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Participation of intellectual professions
The traditional academic system is based upon status differences between pupils and teachers. One of the problems is the reception they get--a great many experts do not take it kindly when they are challenged by the ignorant, and get no respect for their qualifications, or even negative comments about them. But there is no way of keeping WP open and preventing them from being subjected to this. It affects not just academic experts, but experts in all sorts of fields and knowledgeable amateurs also. Some experts can deal with it well, and a few have been known to go for years on WP without mentioning their academic status. Some have the art of explaining things to make them clear to anyone who is not willfully misunderstanding, and the patience to do it. These are the kind of people we need. Alas, the one's who cannot tolerate the fools are probably never going to be able to work effectively in a WP environment. On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 7:16 PM, Noein prono...@gmail.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 28/05/2010 22:42, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote: 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.) Well, I am a university professor in physics and a Wikipedia administrator. There's a misunderstanding. Not surprising because I'm terrible with words. I'm glad you're here and I'm sure there are a lot like you. I'm expressing my surprise that there are so many reticences among the intellectual professions, at least in France and Argentina where I made my little personal investigation. I would naively expect a massive participation from them, on the supposition that they share a vocation for sharing knowledge and a passion to learn from others. And indeed some do. I have the impression, however, that they're a minority. Please correct me if I'm wrong. If it needs to be precised, I try to never communicate to impose personal convictions but to ask questions and provoke thoughts in the hope of deeper questions. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMAE6/AAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LszIIAJJ8upZ219OBGr3w6wbpp6CT 1SnTMVszCB7rEp0961AwM1oDgiNed/QTNtk5+nH8rtT4FXlMvGDA6Abx8CttQYlS ygDeRiHm2r6O0CsHWR6QrS+gKD3G4JkrdUUrSgFE0ZNyflpwUW0KB9Zhl/2gOXjY DrcCiTAdA8qAX/f4OabDJi9TE8NAR0yzuti196Z0k9rAQmbEAvX/UDjxJ7Cvr3Nu 8IVJ0LxG84tLwPDQ3iWE5E2N9S51uJiUrEK0qiKhp5KgD7T89ABKcz/JYpV5YKfV HJxe9QvPDIYbB5dcr66nYrfAbIq95fnMcITkJOuLEtfqeYffQFXZBTZYR4CA9Eg= =u1X4 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Participation of intellectual professions
Exactly what David said. -- ~Keegan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Participation of intellectual professions
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 12:21 AM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.w...@gmail.comwrote: Exactly what David said. -- ~Keegan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan Aye, there is a group who will never really be able to fit in (I generally think of them as the elitist side of the academics but that isn't really the best way to describe them I think). I do think that there are a lot who aren't really engaged who could be brought in though. Other then the elitism group I think most of the other problems they have can at some level be overcome by showing them the opportunities and benefits. The Public Policy Initiative that the Foundation is starting sounds like a great idea to get some thoughts on how to do this (both helping to incorporate the grad and undergrad students but also the profs by showing them exactly how much it can do). In the end however we are going to have to be able to expand it to other disciplines and find good ways for us to do it on a larger (and more volunteer run) scale. There was an interesting point that I saw a couple weeks ago (I think it was in the Initiatives State 1 report, perhaps it was just in the description on OutreachWiki). Basically it was talking about who had the most time to edit. Undergrads had the most, Grads and Professors tended to be more focused on academic papers/books for work reasons and then the Retired Professors had more time again. I think we could still get a fair amount of Grad students and active Professors but the Retired/Emeritus Professors would be another good group to try and target (and one I believe that will be less focused on by the current Initiative) I know we have some, but there are tons more out there ;). James Alexander james.alexan...@rochester.edu jameso...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
