This is somewhat similar to Citizendium, except their peer-review is open, as is currently also considered a good practice. they haven't gotten very far with it, and they seem to have almost all of our problems in maintaining NPOV. I suggest we let them develop their model, and we continue ours'.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 7:52 AM, Charles Matthews <charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > "This alienates a large number of academics who are already very > interested in learning about and contributing to Wikipedia but have > difficulty justifying it as legitimate work." > > [[Academia]] claims "...Academia has come to connote the cultural > accumulation of knowledge, its development and transmission across > generations and its practitioners and transmitters." So, if that > definition is OK, I don't see the issue with the fundamental point: WP's > aims are compatible, though restricted to the transmission. Cue the > discussion of the relative values of teaching and research in > universities, going back to the nineteenth century and resolved, > largely, in the second half of the twentieth century in favour of > "publish or perish". > > Having been an academic, I actually think we should take a stronger line > on WP's behalf. The transmission of knowledge gets reduced to a trickle > when the only people who read learned journals are academics, and only > in their subfield (which may have a scale as small as 100 workers > worldwide). We should be saying quite clearly something like: > > *Academics who feel their work has value can expect to spend some > proportion of their time on "survey" writing, making it clear to > outsiders (fellow academics, amongst others) what is happening in their > subfield; > *Such work itself ought to be valued properly by those who support > research, because if it doesn't happen by some or other means, the > long-term outlook for a research area is affected; > *Wikipedia has come up with an excellent model for the distribution, > refereeing, indexing and updating of such survey work. Editable > hypertext is a real advance on the traditional survey paper. > > 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 > _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l