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."

10 of 385 comments (clear)

  1. Original Research? by Xgamer4 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Original Research? by Brett+Buck · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly, the entire premise of the thing precludes any actual academic content from actual experts.

  2. Ego? by Henk+Poley · · Score: 4, 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.

  3. Revert wars and other Editor stupidity by still_sick · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  4. Tenure, promotion by jdgeorge · · 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.

  5. Re:Isn't it obvious? by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?
  6. Re:Isn't it obvious? by bloodhawk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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,

  7. The Problem by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  8. Re:Isn't it obvious? by lgw · · 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.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  9. Re:Isn't it obvious? by pleclair · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.