Wikipedia again...
This new article by Noam Cohen in the New York Times explores some of the same issues with Wikipedia that keep coming up again and again. The news that a college has banned citations of the open encyclopaedia is a bit like, "duh." Wikipedia lacks several markers of scholarship.
The article makes it clear that more and more academics are taking a pragmatic approach (like mine) to Wikipedia.
Historian of Russia Marshall Poe is one of those who continues to beat the drum for scholarly participation in Wikipedia. I have heeded his call and joined the Russian History project, but I have still not taken the time and energy to make any substantive contributions. A factor that keeps coming up again and again in discussions of Wikipedia - the lack of "credit" I or any other contributor would get - is simply too important an issue for me to invest the time. It is simple: When I spend my time and energy on distributing the expertise which has cost me so much time, money and energy, I am very reluctant to do so for free. I at least want my name on it. There is no more reason why I should give it away than the grocer on the corner should just give out his produce for free. Anybody would think it ridiculous to even ask him to do so.
My kind of expertise - academic knowledge - is being increasingly commodified. That being the case, I see no reason why we should actively contribute to the continued devaluation of our expertise by not just selling it under value, but giving it away for free. The trend seems to be to let the "invisible hand" (really a product of conscious policy) create an army of poorly-paid adjuncts teaching mass-produced, cookie-cutter courses. Why should we not only go along with that but then accelerate the process by putting our research online for free? We should go along with the trend while working to increase the value of our product or, alternatively, fight the trend toward commodification. Going along with commodification while actively eroding the value of our product is not the answer.
Give me security and patronage so I can follow my "muse" (in which case I might "muse around" at Wikipedia) or pay me the value of my work. At the very least let me - indeed, for the sake of all involved, make me - put my name on it.
The article makes it clear that more and more academics are taking a pragmatic approach (like mine) to Wikipedia.
Historian of Russia Marshall Poe is one of those who continues to beat the drum for scholarly participation in Wikipedia. I have heeded his call and joined the Russian History project, but I have still not taken the time and energy to make any substantive contributions. A factor that keeps coming up again and again in discussions of Wikipedia - the lack of "credit" I or any other contributor would get - is simply too important an issue for me to invest the time. It is simple: When I spend my time and energy on distributing the expertise which has cost me so much time, money and energy, I am very reluctant to do so for free. I at least want my name on it. There is no more reason why I should give it away than the grocer on the corner should just give out his produce for free. Anybody would think it ridiculous to even ask him to do so.
My kind of expertise - academic knowledge - is being increasingly commodified. That being the case, I see no reason why we should actively contribute to the continued devaluation of our expertise by not just selling it under value, but giving it away for free. The trend seems to be to let the "invisible hand" (really a product of conscious policy) create an army of poorly-paid adjuncts teaching mass-produced, cookie-cutter courses. Why should we not only go along with that but then accelerate the process by putting our research online for free? We should go along with the trend while working to increase the value of our product or, alternatively, fight the trend toward commodification. Going along with commodification while actively eroding the value of our product is not the answer.
Give me security and patronage so I can follow my "muse" (in which case I might "muse around" at Wikipedia) or pay me the value of my work. At the very least let me - indeed, for the sake of all involved, make me - put my name on it.
mhatlie - 26. Feb, 11:08 Topic: Life and work online http://hatlie.twoday.net/stories/3366462/
I can certainly appreciate your sentiments and reservations. Time will ultimately decide the viability and validity of a "self-cleaning" scholarly source... that is of "neutral point of view" to boot. BTW, Radio Times had an interesting interview with a history professor from Middlebury and a librarian from Rutgers last week: http://www.whyy.org/podcast/022607_110630.mp3
Just yesterday I was reading some nutrition advice and I came across this proviso: "Passion alone does not breed expertise." Or, as a colleague says, "Would you want your surgeon to get his/her info from the Wikipedia?" That said, as a librarian I think that wikis and blogs are great tools for reaching out to students ...the better to reel them in :-) I've also enjoyed connecting with people in different countries, and I think that's one of the benefits of Flickr and the other Web 2.0 tools that make use of "folksonomies." But I can see a difference between social connections and scholarship. That distinction is really what many students do not grasp. At any rate, we cannot afford not to know about these phenomena or to act as though they don't exist. You do really well, in my view, to address Wikipedia in your instructions to your students.
I also think that there's a bit of a contradiction in Roy Rosenzweig's assertions about Wikipedia's "anonymous" scholarship (http://chnm.gmu.edu/resources/essays/d/42). It's not really anonymous --except for those contributors who identify themselves by IP address only, perhaps (and even an IP address can be somewhat localized). There's obviously a great deal of personal pride in getting an article posted or making additions/corrections under one's screen name. Otherwise, why would "reversion wars" occur? If it was really such an altruistic endeavor, why wouldn't I mind then when someone claiming a higher level of expertise came along and corrected or deleted something I wrote? I'm just wondering if this whole phenomenon is perhaps very ephemeral and period specific and if the next generation of Internet users will get the same thrill out of collective authorship.
Since you're located in Germany, I was wondering if you see a different caliber of expertise or scholarship in the German Wikipedia. I have a German colleague who claims that the German version is a whole different animal.
--Barbara (barbara.quintiliano AT villanova.edu)
(librarian at Villanova U. and resident Wikipedia-gazer: http://newsletter.library.villanova.edu/story.php?id=151
-- referred by Adele Lindenmeyer)
I wonder about the reversion wars. I always figured it was ideological because I never paid attention to authorship on Wikipedia. 20 years ago, it was "if you haven't been on TV, you don't really exist." Today, that might be the internet. Everyone has to leave their mark. When you post something, you want it to stay up. It might also be an old habit from internet forums where battles are quite heated.
Interestingly, I haven't paid much attention to the German Wikipedia. I have tried to post some links there and looked up a few terms I needed. I read an article in a humanist newsletter I subscribe to about a battle going on there on the page with the article "Atheist." Apparently, some "fundies" are stirring up quite a mess. I went over there and checked it out. It is an excellent article. Very thorough. But I see that the discussion has gotten a bit touchy over the issue of "atheism and morality" with verious studies being introduced to show that atheists are decent people - and then deleted. I have noticed that the German wikipedia it is more restrictive. When I try to post links there to my sites-of-memory.de project, it is not as easy.
What Wikipedia hath wrought
Thanks for the observations on the German Wikipedia. Sorry to darken your virtual doorway again so soon, but since you're over there in "Old Europe," I didn't want you to miss out on the latest:
Conservapedia
http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page
"A conservative encyclopedia you can trust."
"Conservapedia is a much-needed alternative to Wikipedia, which is increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American. On Wikipedia, many of the dates are provided in the anti-Christian "C.E." instead of "A.D.", which Conservapedia uses. Christianity receives no credit for the great advances and discoveries it inspired, such as those of the Renaissance. Read a list of many Examples of Bias in Wikipedia.
"Conservapedia is an online resource and meeting place where we favor Christianity and America. Conservapedia has easy-to-use indexes to facilitate review of topics. You will much prefer using Conservapedia compared to Wikipedia if you want concise answers free of "political correctness".
"Hear Conservapedian debate Wikipedian on BBC radio here. http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/wednesday.shtml
from:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page