On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 9:34 PM, Richard Jensen <rjen...@uic.edu> wrote:
> > Very few Wiki articles in history city any journals, and the books used > tend to be out of date or else well known new books by famous authors > working at the Pulitzer prize level--those prize books do get cited. > However much less often does Wiki cite monographs from university presses. > It is now possible to use google and amazon for their excellent search and > excerpt roles --but those were not available back in 2006-8 when most of > the writing was done. In my opinion a way to attract professors is to > encourage them to use their classes to upgrade the scholarship in the Wiki > articles. ~~~~ > > No. Categorically, no. Most academics who are great scholars are poor teachers. These poor teachers have created a lot of disruption on Wikipedia with their classes. You get students who plagiarise or who violate referencing policies like MEDRS or who use academic sources to make arguments that are FRINGE as a way of showing content mastery for the class which violates Wikipedia's policies and ideals. You cannot have recent primary research in medical articles, and a lot of classes doing that need that. Beyond which, you're still talking a minor subset of articles where doing a lot of citing of academic journals would make sense. No. If you want academics involved, you go to research centres and doing training at research centres where academics are taught about Wikipedia's assessment process, what this means, how referencing works, etc. Then you explain the benefits to them. Classroom work is not worth it. (And WMF isn't going to do the research right to prove it one way or another.) -- twitter: purplepopple blog: ozziesport.com
_______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
