On 09/19/2010 06:48 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: >> the issue is not >> >>> restricted >>> to the English Wikipedia. >>> >> >> Let's assume there's a problem. What's your plan of action? >> How does >> it differ from the usual way of dealing with these issues >> (getting >> interested people together, setting up a wikiproject and >> getting to >> work)? >> > The problems in this area are > > (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. > > As reported in the press, there is an ongoing WikiProject to improve > Wikipedia's Public Policy coverage, through collaboration with university > professors and their students. It is funded by a $1.2 million Stanton > Foundation grant. > > http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Public_Policy_Initiative > http://blog.wikimedia.org/blog/2010/05/11/wikipedia-heads-to-school/ > > The Foundation has said that it hopes this is only the first of many such > collaborations with universities. Now, how do you go about setting a project > like this in motion? > I'm not entirely sure how accurate this is, so I'm just making a raw conjecture here that is completely unsupported by facts other than perhaps by general observations:
Is it possible that the problem with the humanities-related articles on Wikipedia has more to do with the lack of an existing culture of "copyleft" or public domain collaboration? It has taken literally decades of effort that go back even a couple of decades earlier of similar efforts to put together what is today the "open source movement" that has produced things like Linux, the GNU tools, and software like Apache. Wikipedia is a product of this environment too, where many of those who have participated in developing open source software don't hesitate to at least add a couple of paragraphs to Wikipedia. I also don't see any sort of social stigma to having a very experienced and skilled rocket engineer write or correct a Wikipedia article about a particular model of a rocket. In fact that may be a resume enhancement if you can point to a Wikipedia article that you have written and brought to Featured Article status. Heck, most engineering managers would be impressed that you can write a coherent sentence in the first place, much less get it "published" even in a forum like Wikipedia. Needless to say, articles like the Boeing CST-100 article is very much up to date and shows regular edits where the quality of the article is constantly improving. If you've never heard about this spacecraft, it would be a good one to read BTW. Not "Featured Article" quality, but an example of a new article where the collaborative nature of Wikipedia is its strength and where there isn't a lack of quality editors participating. The first edit on this article was just a year ago and for what is known is an exhaustive article on the topic. When I see those involved with the Humanities, it is a very different environment. I merely mentioned to one historian that I was writing a Wikipedia article and wanted to ask him a relatively minor question that could easily be answered.... I was just trying to find the source for some information he wrote on a website to see if there might be some additional information I could use in a related Wikipedia article. Instead, he unleashed on me how I was wasting my time and how I should stay away from Wikipedia if I knew what was good for me. On top of that, he mentioned that as a professor he would automatically flunk a student out of his class (not just give an "F" on the assignment) if he found a student even consulting Wikipedia for an initial overview of a topic. There was that much hostility to the project. BTW, I agree that Wikipedia shouldn't be cited as a source, but I don't think the Encyclopedia Britannica should be cited either. There has been plenty of ink spilled on tis topic that I need not go further. The use of Wikipedia to find good sources for a topic, however, should be something emphasized. Links to secondary and primary sources is something that ought to be a strength of Wikipedia. The problem, to me, is even fostering a collaborative and copyleft meme among those who work in the humanities. This is the problem with humanities related articles on Wikipedia, where it is a symptom of a much larger cultural problem with this particular academic discipline rather than something specific to just Wikipedia. I don't think there is a "magic bullet" here but I do think it is something that needs attention. This also would seem to me as something that will get corrected over time... as long as we are not talking a mere timespan of just five or six years but are looking forward in a generation or two. There is a generation growing up with Wikipedia, and when those kids get into college, start to study the humanities and see that Wikipedia is very weak on those topics but goes into incredible depth on topics like Palladium, they are going to start writing those other articles that is currently the complaint about this thread. I don't think it is something to necessarily blow millions of dollars upon, but it is something that should be raised or discussed in academic forums where appropriate. It also is a generational issue. -- Robert Horning ____________________________________________________________ Refinance Now 3.7% FIXED $160,000 Mortgage for $547/mo. FREE. No Obligation. Get 4 Quotes! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3241/4c969c472bda2c807d8st03vuc _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
