----- Original Message ----- From: "Andreas Kolbe" <[email protected]> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2010 1:48 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
> (1) demanding subject matter, requiring some familiarity with the topic > area to be able to contribute effectively > (2) the relative scarcity of editors who have prior knowledge in these > areas. > > So "throwing more editors at the Humanities problem" through a WikiProject > may not work in this case. Getting students and academics involved might. Agree with this. Let's throw in a further reason: there are positive *disincentives* to editing Wikipedia in this area. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Owl#Wikipedia.27s_accuracy_and_credibility_.28editorial_comments.29 I know the philosopher who wrote this: well-regarded in his area of expertise, and has made positive contributions to Wikipedia. Read the reasons he gives. He stopped contributing in 2006. Or this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mel_Etitis#My_attitudes_to_Wikipedia_.28an_excuse_for_some_moans.29 by another well-regarded philosopher, also an administrator. Stopped editing in 2007. Or this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nsalmon Salmon is a highly respected philosopher, who edited under his own name. He left, saying "I would strongly urge you to leave the editing of articles concerning philosophy and/or philosophers to genuine experts. You simply lack the understanding and expertise required to assess whether an edit is a genuine improvement or an obvious and cowardly sniper attack (as with the insertion in question)." Note further down I tried to persuade him to stay (as I have done with a number of academic philosophers). I haven't succeeded with any of them. One of them was incredulous that I should want to persist with it. "Hello! I've just stumbled across the latest episode in your peculiar relationship with this Sisyphean project. I still don't understand why you bother. " http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peter_Damian&diff=prev&oldid=257117615 . Or here "This article [analytic philosophy] is typical Wikipedia on philosophy -- an accumulation of wildly uneven contributions by diverse hands. (Interestingly, the quality generally goes south the farther the article progresses.)" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Analytic_philosophy&diff=370669325&oldid=370590053 . Or the person who emailed me last week saying " really need help to do a rewrite of [[X]], which is a terrible mess, and I posted on theWikiproject philosophy page knowing I'd almost certainly get no response. There are so few people with philosophy training on WP that we literally can't afford to lose a single one". I could find plenty more like that. Summary: it is not a matter of "rounding up" potentially interested editors who have the necessary expertise. It's not that there is no incentive, it's that there is a strong disincentive. Note that most of the professional philosophers who have edited Wikipedia, stopped editing between 2005-7, which bears out the point I am making that something bad happened during that period. "My basic attitude remains unchanged, but as Wikipedia becomes more popular, more and more an more people are using it to advertise/puff themselves or their friends. There are therefore more genuinely unencyclopædic articles being added now" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mel_Etitis&diff=prev&oldid=101296369 _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
