> No indeed. That's why I say the question is how to get
> across to
> idiots that they are, in fact, idiots - without breaking
> what clearly
> works fantastically well on Wikipedia. (How to avoid, for
> instance,
> falling into a credentialism death spiral.)
I guess it is also worth thinking about our criteria for success. What is
success? Is it to have as many editors as possible?
I'd suggest it isn't. Editors are undoing each other's work all the time, and
typing millions of words arguing with each other. It is not efficient. We could
say that doesn't matter, because they're all volunteers, but it is inefficient
nonetheless.
The real criterion for success should be that we have good, well-researched,
stable articles that inform the public.
I agree with you, David, that credentialism isn't the way forward. But asking
editors, nicely, to please do some research and to check what scholarly
literature is available, in google scholar, in google books, and in academic
publications databases, should not be too much to ask.
Speaking of academic databases, one thing which would be a great boon would be
to get Wikipedians access to these databases. It's all right for those who have
ready access to a library or university system, but many databases of academic
publications are closed to the general public. You get an abstract and/or the
first page, and that's it: more is not available without logging in. Often, you
can't even buy the paper if you're prepared to shell out money for it.
This is something where the Foundation could perhaps help, by asking
universities who support our work whether they would be willing to grant
Wikipedians -- or at least a limited number of Wikipedians -- some sort of
affiliation status, so they could log into these databases the same way their
students do.
Andreas
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
