Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia Wants More Contributions From Academics
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."
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 clause?
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.
A few weeks back there was a /. article about there were a sizable portion of wikipedia contributors who were just up and leaving because they didn't want to deal with that anymore.
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.
...Also, I didn't know Buggalo could fly.
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.
Anyone contributing something to wikipedia is bound to get disrespected by the moderators with obvious personal causes.
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.
If wikipedia wants academics they'll need a nice clean slate for only academics to play in.
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.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
It also doesn't help when someone anonymous assumes "ownership" of an article and fights any changes you make to it. Then the whole thing turns into a colossal waste of time, even if you are an academic with something important to say. Unless you're contributing to a niche, your time is better spent working with students or writing for grants.
Unless Wiki has done something about the moronic system they have in place that allows people to camp articles and defend them by simply deleting anything that doesn't conform to their exact views I can't see why more professional people would be the slightly bit interested in wasting their time there. I corrected a few articles a few years back now where I had enough expertise to realise some mistakes only to see them deleted the very next day, consequently they were also the last contributions I ever made to wikipedia,
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.
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.
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.
you go to a sick place
Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
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.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
> 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.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
Academics don't skip out on editing wikipedia because of ego. Academics skip out on editing wikipedia because they don't have time to do so. Most academics who are involved in research spend so much time writing grant applications and doing other critical job-maintaining functions that they simply don't have time to fight with wikipedia editors to try to improve a page - even if it is a page that directly relates to their own work.
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.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Of course not. And why post AC? Isn't it funny how people diss Wiki for "deletionism", but come short when it comes to linking to an instance? Why won't they link to an edit of theirs that got reverted and let ME decide if it's "deletionism" or plain good editing? Because they are full of crap.
As an academic (physics prof.), I can tell you this is exactly why I don't contribute. Ditto for the GP post. I spend many, many hours per week educating students and learning more about my field to stay on top of things, not to mention all the years at university. So, yeah, I expect my opinion in my areas of expertise to count for something more than average.
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.