Re: [WikiEN-l] Do experts have a moral obligation to contribute to Wikipedia?
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 8:14 PM, Kevin Gamble wrote: > >* http://blog.k1v1n.com/2009/08/if-tree-falls-in-forest-part-1.html > *>* > *>* He thinks that experts have a moral obligation to contribute to > *>* Wikipedia, because it's the source people actually go to. > * > > Just to be clear, I didn't say anything in the post about experts having a > moral obligation to contribute. The "moral" part of this conversation came > in the form of a comment from a person who dugg the blog post. Thanks for the clarification. -Luna ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] Do experts have a moral obligation to contribute to Wikipedia?
>* http://blog.k1v1n.com/2009/08/if-tree-falls-in-forest-part-1.html *>* *>* He thinks that experts have a moral obligation to contribute to *>* Wikipedia, because it's the source people actually go to. * Just to be clear, I didn't say anything in the post about experts having a moral obligation to contribute. The "moral" part of this conversation came in the form of a comment from a person who dugg the blog post. Kevin ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Do experts have a moral obligation to contribute to Wikipedia?
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Ben Kovitz wrote: > Wikipedia-editing is pretty far removed from subject-matter > expertise. It's more about searching and summarizing and > collaborating. It's closer to being a librarian than any other > occupation. Librarian? Nah. There are lots of consultants in many fields whose work consists of researching then writing a report. They use their expertise to help them find the information related to a specific query, then formulate a report. *That* is much like Wikipedia. Steve ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Do experts have a moral obligation to contribute to Wikipedia?
Charles Matthews wrote: > How about the simpler comment that if you have expertise in an area of > public interest, you should consider writing something freely licensed > and putting it on the Web where someone can find it and help aggregate > it? This is a really good point. Subject-matter expertise is one thing. Skill with writing is another. Skill with editing Wikipedia is yet another. Wikipedia-editing is pretty far removed from subject-matter expertise. It's more about searching and summarizing and collaborating. It's closer to being a librarian than any other occupation. Saying, "Subject-matter experts are morally obliged to edit Wikipedia" is not too far from saying, "Subject-matter experts are morally obliged to volunteer at library help-desks." Ben ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Do experts have a moral obligation to contribute to Wikipedia?
But who is heard when people read a Wikipedia article? *An expert* is not heard, that is, no particular expert is heard, because we have no attribution. Cited sources are heard, where sources are cited, for a particular sentence. But even then we get citation creep when those sentences are not enquoted. That is, people will modify or hitch a ride on a sentence with additional quips not found in the underlying source. So in our Marilyn Monroe article we *had* cited a source claiming that her father's country of origin was cited as Norway on her birth certificate. Which is a claim with no evidence. And the source cited, did not state this either. Someone had hitched that "Norway" onto a sentence which had simply read that her father's name was Mortenson on her birth cert. A casual reader cannot disentangle these overlying changes, but may assume this is the voice of the cited expert. I fail to see how when reading any of our articles, a person is actually reading the words of any particular expert. In a *relatively few* articles sources are cited and the actual extracted sentence is enquoted. Those I find the most useful, as you can be fairly sure the source actually states what the quoted sentence states, without repeating the look-up. Will Johnson In a message dated 8/2/2009 9:24:53 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, lunasan...@gmail.com writes: I don't think I'd ever go chiding someone over it, but he brings up a solid point: if you hope to be heard, you need to speak in such a way that people will listen -- this may sometimes include speaking *where* people will listen. **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222846709x1201493018/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=115&bcd =JulystepsfooterNO115) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Do experts have a moral obligation to contribute to Wikipedia?
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 9:26 AM, David Gerard wrote: > http://blog.k1v1n.com/2009/08/if-tree-falls-in-forest-part-1.html > > He thinks that experts have a moral obligation to contribute to > Wikipedia, because it's the source people actually go to. > I don't think I'd ever go chiding someone over it, but he brings up a solid point: if you hope to be heard, you need to speak in such a way that people will listen -- this may sometimes include speaking *where* people will listen. As Charles mentioned, though, experts do quite a lot for us, just by producing those reliable sources we so direly need. -Luna ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Do experts have a moral obligation to contribute to Wikipedia?
Only as much as off-duty doctors, lifeguards, EMTs, etc. have to attempt to save someone's life. Good-samaritan laws exist for a reason. ~A On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 12:26, David Gerard wrote: > http://blog.k1v1n.com/2009/08/if-tree-falls-in-forest-part-1.html > > He thinks that experts have a moral obligation to contribute to > Wikipedia, because it's the source people actually go to. > > (I added a comment that experts without patience for Wikipedia's little > ways can contribute by adding a note and refs to a talk page, they > don't have to dive into the joys of being a Wikipedian.) > > > - d. > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Do experts have a moral obligation to contribute to Wikipedia?
As a Randian I would have to say that no, I have no moral obligation to give up my effort for any compensation other than that compensation which I declare as my due. This is not to say that Ayn Rand would not contribute, only that the compensation of such contribution must be that which she would request, not that which the community would offer. When these two are the same, than an expert would have no problem with contributing. You are not required to sacrifice your work for the greater good. The greater good is better served when you achieve a heroic effort within your own desired framework. Not that framework imposed by others. Brilliance is never achieved by committee. Will Johnson **A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222846709x1201493018/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=115&bcd =JulystepsfooterNO115) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Do experts have a moral obligation to contribute to Wikipedia?
Do experts have an obligation? No. Educators and those whose goal is
to improve the world's knowledge, yes. And everyone has a motivation
to contribute driven by public interest, but not everyone recognizes
it.
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Carcharoth wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 8:14 PM, Charles
> Matthews wrote:
>
>> How about the simpler comment that if you have expertise in an area of
>> public interest, you should consider writing something freely licensed
>> and putting it on the Web where someone can find it and help aggregate
>
> I'd agree with this. Publishing a reliable source and making it widely
> and freely accessible can be better that contributing to Wikipedia.
> Especially if you are the sort of expert that doesn't have the time
> and patience for Wikipedia. But equally we have an obligation to make
> sure that the trolls and POV pushers don't mess things up or distort
Agreed. Publishing and promoting standards for how to 'announce'
anew publication to Wikipedians, without needing to learn how to edit
a talk page, would be a great start -- something like pingback for all
major mechanisms people use to publish their works online.
To the comment that Wikipedians adding {{cn}} everywhere annoys
experts : this is something we have an obligation to fix. The request
for a citation is a way of making offered expertise more valuable, not
a way of challenging people for thinking they know something useful to
others.We should make the process of getting cites friendly and
rewarding, not annoying and combative.
-Sj
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Do experts have a moral obligation to contribute to Wikipedia?
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 8:14 PM, Charles Matthews wrote: > How about the simpler comment that if you have expertise in an area of > public interest, you should consider writing something freely licensed > and putting it on the Web where someone can find it and help aggregate > it? Those who compile WP tend to have more sophisticated search habits > than putting a single keyword into Google and hoping for the best. > (Someone please reassure me that this is true ...) I'd agree with this. Publishing a reliable source and making it widely and freely accessible can be better that contributing to Wikipedia. Especially if you are the sort of expert that doesn't have the time and patience for Wikipedia. But equally we have an obligation to make sure that the trolls and POV pushers don't mess things up or distort what is being said in the article that is being supported by said reliable source. As for searching. It depends what databases and resources you have access too. I frequently come up against paywalls. There are only so many times you can look around for a different source, or ask someone else (who has access) for a copy. I have something else I want to say about lists and redlinks, but I'll do that in another thread. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Do experts have a moral obligation to contribute to Wikipedia?
David Gerard wrote: > http://blog.k1v1n.com/2009/08/if-tree-falls-in-forest-part-1.html > > He thinks that experts have a moral obligation to contribute to > Wikipedia, because it's the source people actually go to. > So first you need to show that there is an obligation to do anything [[pro bono publico]] if you are an expert. (OK, declaring that you are doing something pro bono helps shore up a reputation as an expert, but that is not quite what we are discussing.) Then you need to prove that the effectiveness of what you so do should be measured in the sort of "mass media" terms implied here: discrimination about whom you inform is pretty much irrelevant. Then you need to show everyone uses Google and never gets down to the bottom of the first page. (These do seem to be getting easier.) How about the simpler comment that if you have expertise in an area of public interest, you should consider writing something freely licensed and putting it on the Web where someone can find it and help aggregate it? Those who compile WP tend to have more sophisticated search habits than putting a single keyword into Google and hoping for the best. (Someone please reassure me that this is true ...) Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Do experts have a moral obligation to contribute to Wikipedia?
On 02/08/2009, David Gerard wrote:
> http://blog.k1v1n.com/2009/08/if-tree-falls-in-forest-part-1.html
>
> He thinks that experts have a moral obligation to contribute to
> Wikipedia, because it's the source people actually go to.
Dunno about that. I do know that an expert can be defined as somebody
who has forgotten how he found out what he knows, and I also know that
I have a moral obligation to stick {{cn}} next to what they (or
anybody else) write like that, and that they will doubtless find this
irritating...
ergo, I have a moral obligation to annoy any experts I find in the
wikipedia. ;-)
> - d.
--
-Ian Woollard
"All the world's a stage... but you'll grow out of it eventually."
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Do experts have a moral obligation to contribute to Wikipedia?
on 8/2/09 12:26 PM, David Gerard at dger...@gmail.com wrote: > http://blog.k1v1n.com/2009/08/if-tree-falls-in-forest-part-1.html > > He thinks that experts have a moral obligation to contribute to > Wikipedia, because it's the source people actually go to. The "moral obligation" is in ensuring the accuracy of the material. > > (I added a comment that experts without patience for Wikipedia's little > ways can contribute by adding a note and refs to a talk page, they > don't have to dive into the joys of being a Wikipedian.) > "Wikipedia's little ways"? Whatever that means. And, for some of us, the joy is in the diving in. And the deeper the pool the better :-). Marc Riddell ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] Do experts have a moral obligation to contribute to Wikipedia?
http://blog.k1v1n.com/2009/08/if-tree-falls-in-forest-part-1.html He thinks that experts have a moral obligation to contribute to Wikipedia, because it's the source people actually go to. (I added a comment that experts without patience for Wikipedia's little ways can contribute by adding a note and refs to a talk page, they don't have to dive into the joys of being a Wikipedian.) - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
