Thanks for the clarification about the Journal of American History; I guess I was mistaken.
Responding to your other comment, I am surprised at your frequent jabs at "the bitter feelings that are obvious among the Wikipedians here toward academe". This is not at all obvious to me, and I doubt it is "obvious" to most people on this list. I've been editing Wikipedia off and on since 2003, have been involved in various Wikipedia lists (like this one), and have never experienced this perceived anti-academic sentiment (though I do hear people talk about it sometimes, like you now). For sure, I don't go about editing and presenting myself as some sort of authority--I assume that any authority I might have should show in my contributions, and I let them speak for themselves (not that I am an extensive contributor--I am not). I've never faced this kind of problem that you refer to. On the contrary, I frequently encounter the sentiment of trying to get more academics to participate in Wikipedia. Ironically, this very list is one of the strongest expressions of that pro-academia sentiment, which makes it especially odd that you somehow feel animosity from "the Wikipedians here". Or perhaps I misunderstood your reference to "here". Chitu Okoli Associate Professor in Management Information Systems John Molson School of Business Concordia University, Montréal Phone: +1 (514) 993-6648 http://chitu.okoli.org/pro -------- Message original -------- Sujet: Re: [Wiki-research-l] quality control De : Richard Jensen <rjen...@uic.edu> Pour : Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Date : 22 Mai 2012 23:21:35 What's relevant to Wikipedia is that Wiki editors are not allowed to do original research. We are required to base our articles on published reliable secondary sources. In history we do not do very well -- Wikipedia is good at military history, mediocre at political history and poor at social & cultural history. Despite the bitter feelings that are obvious among the Wikipedians here toward academe, that Wikipedia depends upon paid professionals for its material. -- I am referring of course not to the thousands of Wiki articles on video game or TV characters but to the serious material that bears resemblance to the Encyclopedia Britannica. Better yet, compare Wiki with the hundreds of other academic encyclopedias that you can find in university libraries. The quality of content of those paper history encyclopedias, in my professional judgment, is significantly better than Wikipedia. Richard Jensen _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
