From my experience, I'd suggest that nowadays most professors also use Wikipedia - they're just sensible enough not to admit this to other researchers!
As an open, free, and peer-reviewed (think about what this means) information resource, Wikipedia kicks the living hell out of academic journals in terms of reach, dissemination and knowledge transfer. It challenges the whole structure of academic hierarchy. It might (horror of horrors) even suggest that knowledge development and innovation happen more quickly and more effectively outside academic institutions than inside them. Ouch, ouch, ouch! Prepare in the next few years to see systematic assaults by established academic institutions and their funders on the whole concept of open knowledge sharing. But wait... that's happening already! Let's face it, the easiest, and most effective way for academia to improve the quality of Wikipedia would be for them to engage with the process and edit inaccurate pages. If well informed students and tutors spent an hour a week... However, this runs counter to academic hierarchies' primary mission, which is to ration (not to encourage) dissemination of knowledge to preserve their own business models. Look at the language in which many academic articles are couched - deliberately obfuscated, opaque, incomprehensible. The oft-touted suggestion that clarity and comprehensibility are "inaccurate" or "imprecise" is nonsense - an intelligent writer can make the most complex subject seem comprehensible to any reasonably educated reader if they so choose. The ONLY correct answer to dissemination and knowledge transfer is free, open online dissemination. The Institute for Network Cultures in Amsterdam already does this. Many research funding bodies are gradually coming to this conclusion, and making open publication a requirement of research funding. The only catches are that: (i) open publication does not have an easily understood income generation model, and (ii) it fundamentally undermines academic institutions' claims to be uniquely empowered to develop knowledge. Best Regards, James ===== Ruth Catlow wrote: > if this is really true the profs need to wise-up. > Wikipedia is a great first stop for research allowing students to do a > proper broad sweep to find their subject. > Its also a useful tool for reflecting on the ways in which knowledge > is constructed (demonstrating concepts such as hierarchies of > authority, filtering, peer-review, gate-keeping, competition, > contested knowledge etc). > > Ruth > > > -----Original Message----- > *From*: marc garrett <[email protected] > <mailto:marc%20garrett%20%[email protected]%3e>> > *Reply-To*: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity > <[email protected] > <mailto:netbehaviour%20for%20networked%20distributed%20creativity%20%[email protected]%3e>> > *To*: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity > <[email protected] > <mailto:netbehaviour%20for%20networked%20distributed%20creativity%20%[email protected]%3e>> > *Subject*: [NetBehaviour] Most students use Wikipedia, avoid telling > profs about it. > *Date*: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 09:29:45 +0000 > > Most students use Wikipedia, avoid telling profs about it. > > By Jacqui Cheng. > > Surprise! Most students use Wikipedia at some point during their > research on a paper or project, and they usually do so early on in the > process. Online peer-reviewed journal First Monday recently published > the findings of its research on student Wikipedia use and said that the > service often serves as a starting point for the students who use it, > allowing them to gather information for further investigation elsewhere. > This is despite the fact that their professors still frown on Wikipedia > use—but it seems that students believe what their profs don't know won't > hurt them. > > http://tinyurl.com/yjjq9o9 > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
