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."
Isn't it obvious? (Score:4, Interesting)
You're asking an academic to write stuff in the same vein as John D Public.
Our Professors tell us to NEVER use wikipedia except as for a citation. Do you think they're going to then go do their edits? If wikipedia wants academics they'll need a nice clean slate for only academics to play in.
Re:Isn't it obvious? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Isn't it obvious? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, what we are told and what I presume the GP was talking about is going to Wikipedia and looking up the articles cited from there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
you go to a sick place
Re:Isn't it obvious? (Score:5, Interesting)
OK, yeah, the guy was evil, but it was a cool evil. Besides that one event, we got along well. I wonder if he still teaches there...
Re: (Score:3)
Hurm, I heard about that guy from my Archaeology teacher across campus. Mr. Jones thought he was a dick.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Not what I meant. You could look at the cited sources and hunt for information there.
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:5, Interesting)
I don't see how it can be done at all in wikipedia's current state. You'd need something like protected edits or two separate pages for each subject. It basically throws the idea behind wikipedia into the toilet. It probably would be a good idea if wikipedia's house is in order, but the latest fiascos show that the whole thing is out of control and is being hijacked by some losers with inflated egos that go on campaigns against people. I personally can't even make an edit on a talk page without some self-important ass being rude to me. No academic who has spent years studying their subject is going to put up with that.
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.
Re: (Score:3)
As another academic, this is also why I don't spend much *effort* contributing, although I do make the occasional edit to articles which are sorely lacking in value. I am one of perhaps 100 of the worlds top experts on cerium oxide (being conservative because I can't read Chinese papers). However, while I was perfectly fine with writing the basic outline of the article, there's no way I'm going to waste my time checking things that others add unless I know offhand if they are correct. Besides, the edits oth
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: (Score:3)
I think the difficulty of getting new material accepted is just as problematic. Say you want to add a new paragraph or section. In order for it to not be immediately deleted you need to discuss it first, write it, get it checked by other editors and then finally add it to the article. Who is going to bother investing all that time and effort when there is a good chance the other editors will just reject it anyway?
Re:Slashdot has no +1 Agree (Score:4, Interesting)
In the same way, "troll" doesn't mean "I disagree". Wikipedia deletionism, and editorial tribalism, is often discussed on Slashdot, and seems to me to be a real obstacle to getting academic contributions. Did I really need to explain that connection, or was it obvious from a moment's consideration?
Re: (Score:3)
You're absolutely right that a non-credentialed person can have the same knowledge, if not more, than the credentialed individual. However, just because they can doesn't mean it is is more likely than not. I was not perhaps clear enough, but I'm not trying to address an
Re: (Score:3)
And yet they usually don't.
[citation needed]
Re: (Score:3)
To add, a credentialed individual is more likely to be involved in an ongoing debate on the subject matter, and have a bit of a PoV bias.
So it's important to have the amateurs around to A) referee for the brainiacs B) clean up after the mundane stuff the brainiacs leave cluttered because such work is beneath them and C) smooth out the article so that it has some accessible material for the curious, in addition to the denser material that might be inpenetratble to the layman.
Despite all the Wikipedia naysayi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Isn't it obvious? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Don't worry. It's pretty much just like you imagine it [livejournal.com]. I haven't seen any changes in years of checking in even after reading what I link you to - and he's pretty much 100% accurate on how Wikipedia really works.
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.
Re: (Score:3)
The system we have still works; it just takes time.
It took judges ~3-7 years, so far, to reverse the most blatantly unconstitutional things that were done.
But the ones that have survived foretell an Orwellian future, I'm afraid.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Isn't it obvious? (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe it's time for the professors as a whole to grow the hell upMaybe it's time for the professors as a whole to grow the hell up.
Or maybe it's time for morons to realize what professors actually do for a living. Sometimes you take weeks or months of your 'spare' time writing grants. You get a score in the top 6% in your field like my friend just did, and it still didn't make the cutoff for funding in his area. So all that time essentially went down the drain. Now he's writing another grant, to try to keep funding for his technicians, post-docs and graduate students. Oh, and he teaches classes in addition to all the other mentoring duties he has. Then of course there's writing papers for peer review publications. Those things that actually add to your CV and get you recognition in your field.
Think he really wants to spend extra hours of his precious time editing a wiki page, when a 12-year old with an attitude who has been on the wiki longer can just reject his edits or change them? Think again.
Maybe it's time for wikipedians to grow up? (Score:5, Informative)
"Maybe it's time for the professors as a whole to grow the hell up."
Maybe the professors are avoiding contributing until wikipedia trolls grow the hell up.
Why spend several hours of your time trying to write a careful, well referenced, measured piece if there is too high a chance that you'll come back the next day to find "u r gay" or something like that splattered all over it? Or somebody with little knowledge of your field picking a fight with you and re-writing your article without entering into measured debate before undertaking the edits? Some professors feel it's not worth the time contributing to a space that may require a lot of time fighting over for little gain. They might feel their time is better spent communicating through other media, say for example contributing to a popular science book, explaining what they are doing on their personal website, publishing in the academic media or doing talks in science festivals. Perhaps they feel the debate is of higher quality in these channels?
Other academics do publish on wikipedia though, some academics do feel it's a place they can share ideas, e.g. in community informatics. Here's looking at you Mike and Larry [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
about when Phoenix University and similar schools began to gain some sort of recognition in the community at large.
The problem is that Phoenix University has a reputation.
Yes, that 16% graduation rate is widely recognized.
Original Research? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You want to argue that a gaming podcast co-host is more notable than one of the worlds best known Game series/TV shows/Card games?
Re:Original Research? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's the Wikipedia "split personality" syndrome.
On one hand, Wikipedia wants to be taken seriously as an information resource, so the editors delete huge swathes of articles because they aren't "notable", i.e. "a real encyclopedia wouldn't publish an article like this, so get rid of it".
On the other hand, Wikipedia wants to preserve its culture of "any idiot with a keyboard and an agenda has just as much right to edit an article as an expert in the subject".
The problem is that those two viewpoints are in complete opposition to each other. Wikipedia cannot have its cake and eat it too. Frankly I thought it was a much better online reference when it allowed all those obscure articles, and didn't take itself so seriously.
Re: (Score:3)
Just last night I was reading this page [wikipedia.org], a list of mostly minor planets in the Star Wars canon, so extensive that that one page was just C-D! Someone explain to me why Old Man Murray gets deleted but all this irrelevant stuff is still there. Surely he's more notable than most of these imaginary planets!
Re:Original Research? (Score:4, Interesting)
What I find fascinating is the idea of a guy spending years and years researching a subject and writing a long, detailed article describing his research only to have it edited down to nothing.
I am, of course, referring to Ford Prefect's article on the Earth edited down to 2 words: Mostly harmless. Presumably because it wasn't notable enough.
Talk about prescient....
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not a professor but I am a post-doc and I've had this happen to me on topics that I've got a PhD and six years of post-doc research experience in. You correct some gross misconception or, more often, rebalance a serious bias on a page, add in as many citations as seem sensible, and then some 15 year old without the slightest clue reverts your edits for no reason and then camps on the page. So you just give up because it's totally pointless to go any further, and then you go off across Wikipedia adding "
Re:Original Research? (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly, the entire premise of the thing precludes any actual academic content from actual experts.
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: (Score:2)
You forgot:
unstated but administratively sanctioned) which side has an admin willing to abuse his powers first to "win" the argument by banning the other side.
Re: (Score:3)
who has the highest authority as a wikipedia editor/closest to founders.
I see that you do not have a lot of experience with the academics and the politic around them.
Re:Original Research? (Score:4, Interesting)
Or, perhaps, academics don't see any reasons to contribute to something that'll erase anything they might add because of Wikipedia's No Original Research [wikipedia.org] clause?
Why would this be any more of a problem? Academic authors ought to be able to cite research papers just like anyone else; in fact, they could even cite their own publications.
The goal isn't to use Wikipedia as a new publishing mechanism for academic papers. It's to get academics (who probably have a better understanding of a nice suite of topics versus their non-academic counterparts) to contribute material to the encyclopedia. The belief is that, in many cases, that material will be higher quality due to its academic origins. However, the material is still subject to all of the constraints that any other material is.
If Wikipedia didn't have these standards, it could not ever hope to hold its own as a legitimate source of quality research, which is the goal it seems to be striving for.
Re: (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: (Score:3)
Except that you can not reference anything on wikipedia that is not on the web
No guideline that I'm aware of exists that says that. I see books cited quite often on Wikipedia.
Re: (Score:3)
Wikipedia often references pay-for material that isn't on the web. It's just as valid, but harder to verify (so it's preferable if there is free material on the web).
Personally, I think this is a problem with the "old model" of academia, not Wikipedia itself. Wikipedia thrives on free information (that's the whole point -- to make information free in a verifiable manner). Having information that is free, but only verifiable by paying sort of breaks that model. Academia needs to embrace the new model of the
Re: (Score:3)
Not so. For example only one of the sources on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southsea_castle [wikipedia.org] is web based.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
+1 No original research, and you're not supposed to cite your own work. There's a lot of Ego going on for sure, I don't think it's the Academics however.
Re: (Score:2)
Academics can contribute plenty of general subject knowledge that isn't original research. And they're unlikely to want to contribute original research, because they'd rather get it published in a journal, where it counts for boosting their career. Once it's published there, it can be cited, so it's fair game for Wikipedia.
A much more plausible explanation is simply that academia moves slowly and ponderously, and won't really change to accommodate anything new until long after it's established in society at
Re: (Score:3)
Or none. The number of Wikipedia contributors has fallen over the last couple years. This is an attempt by Wikimedia to boost the quantity (and quality) of contributors. But it fails to address the basic flaw in having real experts come in. I can edit articles all day, but as long as some friggin' kid with an obsession can simply revert any edits I make, it's not worth the effort to monitor.
Re: (Score:3)
I am sceptical. Primarily because while it is ok to be a content contributor, it is not nice to be a content defender. Arguing with uneducated (and possibly mean) people over the fine points simply lacks dignity and will lead any academic that has some vestigial self-respect running for higher ground. Having a 15 year old edit the prose of a famous professor simply makes no sense.
Besides, as a working academic
Re: (Score:3)
Who supposes them to do that? That is an important question. Is that entity ready to support you financially?
As an academic, you have to be able to put what you do in a CV. And it has to look impressive, because otherwise you will be out of a job eventually. Editing an online encyclopedia that literally everybody can edit, and which is known for having extensive coverage of Pokemo
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.
Re:Ego? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, calling it "ego" implies that it's unwarranted. Professionals/experts in any field (including academics) often get sick of dealing with retards, trolls, under-informed know-it-alls, control-freaks with OCD, and your basic antisocial sociopaths... and Wikipedia has lots of those.
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
How to encourage them? (Score:2)
Re: (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: (Score:3)
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.
If they want academics to dedicate... (Score:4, Informative)
... their precious time to editing Wikipedia, they should first up find a solution to shield them from the drama some Wikipedia editors, admins and ArbCom members love so much.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Look at this from a professor's perspective:
"If I have 4 big projects and 12 grant applications in the works, and 2 grad students, I should waste their time on editing wikipedia? I have carefully interviewed and selected these students because I think they are smart enough to do good work. Having them spend time on wikipedia is no less of a waste than if I spend my time doing it. I need to consistently produce results so that I can get grants to support further research, including grad students. If you
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
A lot of the people on /. were on wikipedia before there was a culture shift. It sounds like you weren't around prior to the Userbox wars when the culture was different. The community really did rule and admins didn't have much actual authority. Wikipedia used to be frustrating but it was remarkably fair. Now admins can casually indefban someone. Its a mean dictatorship.
You propbaly didn't deal much with contorversions (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
Exactly. When tenure is based on publishing, then teaching, then service, and editing/peer-reviewing journal articles *barely* counts as service, Wikipedia ranks somewhere between sleep and bathroom breaks in terms of priority. Academic ego has absolutely nothing to do with it: credit in a way that matters does. Academics are too busy doing 'real research' to bother editing an online encyclopedia for no benefit but warm fuzzies.
In other news, what's with posters adding their own personal bias to news articl
Re: (Score:3)
Parent post is correct. When I undergo my annual performance review, my reviewers only really care about one thing: number of publications in peer reviewed journals. Everything else comes in last.
It's not a good system for a number of reasons. For example, it discourages me from actually acting as a peer reviewer for these journals. Doing a good peer review takes time and I get no credit for it. So why should I do it? Unfortunately this leaves journals desperate for good peer reviewers.
Re: (Score:3)
When you think about it, though, there also seems to be zero incentive for a layperson to edit Wikipedia. The question is how to get academics to feel the same type of intrinsic motivation to edit as everyone else does.
But not everyone does. Only a tiny percentage of people feel the need to edit Wikipedia. Out of the billion or so people with the ability to edit it, that leaves you with plenty of editors. Out of the thousands of quantum physicists or neurosurgeons, it leaves you with maybe one, who is probably too busy to make frequent contributions.
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.
Ego my ass. (Score:4, Informative)
I'm a professor of mathematics, and in the past I've attempted to contribute to several math related articles on wikipedia. You know what always happens? Someone reverts all my edits within a day or so. It doesn't matter how meticulously crafted and referenced the added material is, my contribution gets removed.
I stopped bothering years ago, and it has nothing to so with my inflated "academic ego", a ludicrous concept itself. If recognition was largely important to academics, they probably wouldn't be academics!
Re: (Score:2)
You see it's both the boon: Anyone can contribute. And the bane: Anyone can "contribute".
Re: (Score:2)
Quite true, people who know about 1/10 of what you know about the subject are going to decide what's notable and what's not.
Re:Ego my ass. (Score:5, Interesting)
THAT is Wikipedia's real problem. I'm afraid it might well be the harbinger of its demise if they do not quickly sort things out. Right now adding to Wikipedia is virtually impossible.
I'm a physics undergrad; I plan on moving on to a PhD and I would personally love to add stuff to Wikipedia. It's been a very resourceful starting point for a lot of information and details on courses and I'd be happy to give back. Unfortunately, articles seem to be set in stone by now and I'm not interested in having to fight for every inch of text I'd want to add.
Re:Ego my ass. (Score:5, Interesting)
My first large scale mathematics-related edits to Wikipedia were also heavily reworked/reverted. Quickly, ruthlessly, and *absolutely correctly* changed. While mathematically correct, they also happened to be written at a level of detail not appropriate for Wikipedia.
Even as a mathematician, I get frustrated sometimes looking at Wikipedia articles from other fields of mathematics that are narrowly aimed at specialists within the field. In some senses an article written by an outsider can be better than one written by a professional mathematician, because it's less likely to be aimed at the wrong audience.
Re:Ego my ass. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
No I'm not objective. I'm someone with extensive personal experience. Lots of successful articles and a few problems. I wasn't claiming to be objective I was claiming to be knowledgeable.
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.
ego? (Score:2)
Those things keep them employed. The guy with more journal articles and grants is going to get the job over the guy with more wkipedia edits.
arXiv (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
good point
I've largely given up on contributing to Wikipedia. Over the past few years as I have put in a couple of hours of adding content to a variety of topics I have repeatedly found that content removed by someone claiming a lack of notability or usefulness or perceived advertisement or whatever. Wikipedia is great for keeping track of Dr. Who episodes and comic book characters, but the politics of adding useful information to actual real world places is just ridiculous. The "deletionists" have largely
Nothing is free (Score:2)
What about anti-elitism? (Score:2)
A founding principle of Wikipedia is the specific rejection of established credentialing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Anti-elitism
Unless the wikipedians explicitly reject this principle, and somehow translate "real world" credentials into sway in the wiki, I don't see why any academic would bother.
Can we moderate the summary -1 flamebait? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If you were diligent about reading the firehose (aka "recent submissions") then it might have been rated too low to make it to the front page. Although I think it has to be -eleventy, because -1 stuff is getting through a lot.
Thanks but no thanks (Score:2)
Sure, I could contribute some detailed articles in my area of expertise - and then I would have to fight a never-ending battle to keep my contributions from being mangled by someone who thinks he understands the subject, but really is barely more than an addled sociopath with an agenda. Been there, done that - never again.
While Wikipedia is a great reference for pop culture, it is not the place for a serious academic articles - not unless some major changes are made to the way articles are edited and admin
Pay us. (Score:2, Funny)
One of the reasons we know we're smart is we don't work for free, you dopes.
Create a "Validated Expert" mode (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Create a "Validated Expert" mode (Score:4, Interesting)
Do what Facebook did (Score:3)
Limit these special accounts to academic e-mails addresses. Then, anyone can cross-reference them to actual .edu web pages and verify their identity in that manner, and call them out if they're shown to be invalid.
You'll still have the occasional bad actor (e.g. from a for-profit school), but nothing nearly as bad as what's happening now.
And I think you meant to say multiple people in the same field for #3, because the way you have it, it's no different than what's happening right now.
papers, talks and grant proposals aren't ego (Score:4, Informative)
Research papers, talks, and grant proposals aren't ego. They're what you get paid for. As a tenure track (around here) you have to average about 1 paper a year as your own, or a talk (depends on your field), or both, + supervise grad students who also publish papers. And you pay for all of that with grants which you get from having successful grant proposals. Once you have tenure the 'papers per year' metric drops a bit but the basic 'publish or perish' mantra applies.
Research and writing are work, they take time to do well. If I'm not going to get credit for it I have to do it 'on my own time'. I don't know a lot of people that work for 8 hours a day and then go home and try and do the same thing for another 6 hours for the fun of it. Some profs eat sleep and breathe their work though, but even then, if you have things like families an
With OSS you can contribute, and then write about your contributions or you can 'give it away' (say host on some website) for free. And the author gets credit for both the software and papers written about it. With wikipedia your changes could be tossed if some random admin doesn't like them, or if someone else comes along and decides to change it. Your name never shows up, and you don't get credit for it in any way that would go on a grant proposal or that you can say at a promotion and tenure meeting as meaningful work you've done.
I'm sure if there was a good way to give academic credit for contributions to things like wikipedia it would be a great place for people to start publishing work.
Graduate Student Likes Wikipedia (Score:4, Interesting)
I've seen very few pro-wikipedia comments here but have read many decent wikipedia articles, so I think there may be selection bias going on.
Personally, I have edited various biomedical, biochemical pages and never had any problem. In fact the majority of future modifications only improved upon what I had created. I almost always use wikipedia as a starting point when learning about a subject. Often there is some random fact or connection someone has added to the articles that wouldn't fit well enough for a review article and I would have never thought to check on my own otherwise. Anyone who knows how to do actual research wouldn't really trust even a textbook or peer reviewed article 100% anyway.
I see no problem at all with double checking everything seen on wikipedia before taking it as "fact," this is what people should be doing no matter what the source is. Even if it is a primary source, you need to look at the data and decide for yourself. Of course, if you aren't an expert in an area then it may not be worth the time to double check everything. In that case peer review is more trustworthy than wikipedia, but there should still be a nagging thought in the back of your head that the info is beyond what you should feel "sure" about. Then it becomes important to know your boundaries.
Anyway, I have found reading and contributing to wikipedia a rewarding experience.
Since when? (Score:3)
They are paid teachers. Not paid Wikipedia editors. If Wikipedia wants them to contribute I'd suggest they stop insulting them and instead try and get them to at least submit references to their own papers on topics they are familiar with so other people can then quote out of them or something.
Re: (Score:3)
'Since when has a University Professors role been "intellectuals working for the public good"?'
Every reputable university I know of, and the general professional ethics of academia require that professors teach and mentor students, contribute to human knowledge, and perform an outreach role to the community.
There are some professors who hold teaching positions. Others don't really "teach" much (and aren't really paid for it). Their teaching contribution comes from supervising their grad students. But mos
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.
Why? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't see "David Chalmers" ever editing this article [wikipedia.org]. I can see a revert "at Chalmers[sic] request" though, which is kind of an opposite of what you describe. May be it's just another myth?
And is there a living professional philosopher who doesn't think that his/her Wiki page misrepresents his/her view? If rumors are true, what was Chalmers doing, editing his own page? If his own fans can't get him right on the Wiki, may be he should concentrate on improving the original sources.