Wikipedia Wants More Contributions From Academics 385
holy_calamity writes "University professors don't feel their role as intellectuals working for the public good extends to contributing to the world's largest encyclopedia, the Guardian reports. Wikimedia foundation is currently surveying academics as part of a search for ways to encourage them to pitch in alongside anonymous civilians and raise quality. The main problem seems to be the academic ego: papers, talks and grant proposals build reputation but Wikipedia edits do not."
Original Research? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ego? (Score:5, Insightful)
Most I hear from academics is that they got annoyed with Wikipedia once somebody removes their well explained text, around a subject they know a lot about, once too often.
Revert wars and other Editor stupidity (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't expect a person who spends their days doing research / classes on their topic-of-expertise to have more patience than anyone else in dealing with that.
Tenure, promotion (Score:5, Insightful)
More to the point, tenure and promotion depend significantly upon recognized publications. I'd speculate that there is zero incentive for an academic to spend time updating Wikipedia, but the traditional conference/journal/book publication path is required for advancement in the academic career.
To represent the disinterest in Wikipedia updates as "academic ego" is extremely misleading.
Re:Original Research? (Score:3, Insightful)
+1. Wikipedia has been on such a deletion frenzy lately that I would never want to contribute anything there. They delete all kinds of highly referenced and relevant articles simply because the editor does not know about the subject.
I will never understand why wikiepdia is so frenzied about deletions. If an article is relevant and of good quality, it should stay. It is not like they are going to run out of bytes, I just don't get it.
It's the disrespect not the lack of recognition (Score:4, Insightful)
Being overwhelmed by reverts by random internet zealot while having a degree in the field you are trying to work in can be infuriating and pretty hard to live with.
Re:Isn't it obvious? (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. Because Academics went to school for all those years so their edits can carry the same weight as anyone off the street. Its an even better bonus that if the random dude of the street has been contributing longer they'll get a bump in credibility.
Re:Isn't it obvious? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Isn't it obvious? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Original Research? (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly, the entire premise of the thing precludes any actual academic content from actual experts.
The Problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Ph.D. historians (and similarly, all other scientists) really, really hate it when their texts are edited by a highschool dropout who thinks he remembers a history channel feature broadcast three years ago which totally refuted the presented facts and conclusions written by the academic who only studied the subject for a measly twenty years.
Re:How to encourage them? (Score:3, Insightful)
Academics want to get promoted and tenured. Publishing in PEER REVIEWED journals with high citation and impact scores gets you promoted. Writing for online references that may be used by logarithmically more people does not. Change that reality and you can have all the contributors you can handle.
Set Wikipedia to be a peer-reviewed reference. Give citation credit for whole pieces or sections of articles, be able to get accurate numbers of users to the authors and you get useful stuff on their end.
Re:Original Research? (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. Wikipedia is expert hostile. There is no procedures for evaluating merit, and using simple logic constitutes research, the only valid arguments on wp are:
officially) who can find the most links on the web
unofficially) who has the highest authority as a wikipedia editor/closest to founders.
Both of these are stupid and unacademic.
Re:Ego? (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly.
"Hey you guys are really smart, right? Want to come hang out with a bunch of people who aren't? They aren't too annoying until they come by and start correcting you, when they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. C'mon, it will be fun!!"
I don't even like academics but the self proclaimed wikilords trying to attract knowledgeable people is pretty hilarious.
Re:Original Research? (Score:2, Insightful)
Except that you can not reference anything on wikipedia that is not on the web, and most academic papers on the web are behind paywalls. So the whole thing falls apart right there.
Re:Isn't it obvious? (Score:3, Insightful)
you go to a sick place
Re:Isn't it obvious? (Score:4, Insightful)
It doesn't matter who does the edits: an academic subject matter expert, or a random website visitor. The article will be deleted anyway. It's only a matter of time before wikipedia deletes itself down to 0 articles.
Re:Isn't it obvious? (Score:4, Insightful)
> Wikipedia still calls the USA a Democracy instead of a Tyranny. As far as I'm concerned, this is bias.
I am offended, as someone who cares about the Bill of Rights. I can still sue the government for violating my rights, and there are still rights they are required under law to give me. We also have checks and balances. They are not nearly as powerful as they should be, but they are not nothing. Ultimately, we do not have a tyranny because in the extreme, we can always vote someone out of office. Obama could not order all the Muslims rounded up tomorrow and thrown into gas chambers.
Also, Wikipedia has plenty of controversy and presentation of opposing viewpoints. There's not a lot that's extremely contrary to the norm--Chomsky-esque critiques, for example, which are fascinating because they are internally consistent but massively different than how everyone else views the world. But I would be very surprised if critiques of US policy weren't there.
Good job missing the point (Score:4, Insightful)
If wikipedia wants more academic work, they need to do it themselves. They should spend more time looking for primary sources, and whenever possible obtaining them and citing them properly. In this case, the NIH actually helps wikipedia's cause as a new rule for NIH funding states that NIH funded research must be published in publicly-accessible, no-fee journals (or copies of the same article must be made available freely through NIH pubmedcentral).
So in other words, wikipedia really isn't in the right to be accusing academics of having "ego" issues. Wikipedia is asking for academics to work for less than nothing, as they would be diverting time away from their own working hours (which is often close to around the clock as it is) to do something that does not help them keep their research moving.
Re:Ego my ass. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Isn't it obvious? (Score:5, Insightful)
That being said, my domains of expertise are limited, and that is something not all academics are good at recognizing. Being a PhD in one subject doesn't imply anything about your fluency in another (though it sometimes make you *think* otherwise), so even a 'privileged contributor' status of sorts would have to be implemented carefully I think (e.g., I should not be allowed privileged status to edit medical articles, for instance, I am not qualified for that).
If the climate gets better, I'd love to help out. But that doesn't look likely at this moment. Best I can do for now is keep putting out free texts, notes, solved problems, etc. and hope people find them.