The cited comment might have been a bit over the top, although Brian
explains it in this thread. I do have to agree with others that I have
not seen much if any of this hostility on Wikipedia, and even the
discussion here seems a good illustration that such hostility is rare
and rather good faithed.
I have seen once an academic collegue I respect a lot leave Wikipedia
after (he has done few edits) having been accused of spamming (he was
linking the same academic article on too many pages). The editor who
warned him was too blunt, my collegue was too annoyed with a simple
message and overreacted along the lines "so I am not welcome here -
goodbye", sad but happens. It was, however, the only time I can recall
that I've seen an academic leave this project.
I'd say that the problem in academia-Wikipedia relation is that there
are too few academics editing it, and this is because for most of them
(us...) editing Wikipedia does nothing for our job careers. I am a
sociologist, and I've written dozen of sociology related DYKs, several
Good Articles and one or two Featured ones on subjects of core
importance to my discipline, useful for educating public and teaching
students (my Good/Featured Articles are bios of sociologists that are
present in all books used for teaching "Sociological Theory" and similar
courses). Eventually I feel confident I could bring enough of such bios
to Good/Featured article that they would replace the books we currently
use, contributing to the open textbook movement. But such work is not
recognized by the academia, and my job chances are hurt because when I
write an article for Wikipedia, which are freely read by thousands
people a day (http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Karl_Marx is probably my
most popular one) I am not writing an article that would be published in
a traditional, peer-reviewed and most likely pay-walled journal, read by
a tiny faction of readers that read what I write for Wikipedia - but it
is such article that my colleagues care, not Wikipedia ones. I like to
think that my contributions to Wikipedia are helpful for my discipline,
providing free education to students and other knowledge seekers, but I
know that they are next to worthless on my CV. And when I talk to my
colleagues, be they grad students or veteran professors, I get the same
reply time and again about why they think Wikipedia is cool but they
don't contribute to it: "it does nothing for my CV/job prospects/tenure
review; I have a journal article/book chapter to write/conference to
prepare for, so I have no time to write for Wikipedia".
If we want to encourage cooperation between academia and Wikipedia, we
have to make it worthwhile for academics to contribute to Wikipedia -
worthwhile in terms of their careers. One of the ways to do so would be
to have professional organizations for our respective professions
institute an award for popularization of the respective discipline on
Wikipedia. Till that happens, and till we start treating Wikipedia
contributions on par with publishing in peer reviewed publications, the
collaboration between Wikipedia and academia will be an exception than
the rule, not because of some hostility, but because in the world of
cash economics (as some have reminded me), we cannot afford to
contribute much to a utopian project that does not pay back, neither in
$ nor in professional reputation.
--
Piotr Konieczny
"To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one's
laurels, is defeat." --Józef Pilsudski
On 5/23/2012 12:30 AM, Richard Jensen wrote:
Sadly I think this discussion demonstrates some hostility toward
academe. (here's a quote from yesterday addressed to me on this list:
"...knowledge robberbarons standing athwart history imagining they and
their institutions alone, had the requisite skills and expertise to
engage in knowledge production. Until they didn't. Enjoy your new
neighbors in trash heap of history." I would code his emotional tone
as "hostile")
Well it's always nice to see people citing the lessons of history,
especially since I'm a specialist in that sort of OR. But the
underlying hostility is a problem that bothers me a lot and I have
been trying to think of ways to bridge the gap. There is in operation
a Wikimedia Foundation Education program that is small and will not,
in my opinion, scale up easily to the size needed. In any case the
Foundation plans to cut the US-Canada program loose in 12 months to
go its own way. see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Education_Working_Group/Wikimedia_Foundation_Role
My own thinking is currently along two lines:
a) set up a highly visible Wiki prsence at scholarly conventions (in
multiple disciplines) with 1) Wiki people at booths to explain the
secrets of Wikipedia to interested academics and 2) hands-on workshops
to show professors how to integrate student projects into their
classes. (and yes, professors given paid time off to attend these
conventions, often plus travel money.)
b) run a training program for experienced Wiki editors at a major
research library. (I'm thinking just of Wiki history editors here.)
For those who want it provide access to sources like JSTOR. Bring in
historians covering main historiographical themes. I think this could
help hundreds of editors find new topics, methods and sources that
would lead to hundreds of thousands of better edits.
Richard Jensen
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
