On Thu, 22 Feb 2007, "Marc Carter" wrote: > > Mike Palij had written: > > Allow me to ask an obvious question: > > > > If Prof. Water's knows that Wikipedia's entry on the > > Shimabara Rebellion is incorrect, why didn't he correct it? > > > > I believe that a major point in support of using Wikipedia as > > a source of information is that it has a self-correcting > > mechanism where errors like the one Prof. Water found can be > > corrected by the person who found it. So, why didn't he > > correct it? Perhaps he felt he had no obligation or > > responsibility to do so or perhaps he felt that making a > > contribution like this to Wikipedia was beneath him or some > > other reason. But, given that Prof. Water could probably > > provide a good factual account as well as provide references > > to support his account, why not make the correction? > > > > More generally, especially for Wikipedia articles in > > psychology, what obligation/responsibility do we as teachers > > have in making corrections that are supported with > > appropriate references? > > > > Or is there some reason or reasons why we shouldn't do this? > > I don't think there are any reasons not to,
I tend to agree with this viewpoint and wonder why, given the number of academic psychologists out there, more of them don't contribute in substantial ways to things like Wikipedia entries, especially if they know that students are likely to use Wikipedia as a source (even if uncited) or as a starting point (which is why an entry providing good references and pointers to relevant and appropriate websites, such as Chris Green's, is so important). Is it possible that such activity wouldn't be taken seriously at one's yearly review of professional activities, thus, if the contribution is not made on the basis of virtue (i.e., intrinsic motivation) but on the basis of expected gain (i.e., positive reinforcement, "profit" in some sense of the word, etc.), it is not consider worthwhile? > but I've watched > politically-charged articles get changed and hacked and changed and > hacked several times a day for weeks -- it makes me wonder if it's worth > it. I think we can all appreciate that topics that fall into the "Holy War" category, such as political presentations/arguments or even certain types of scientific presentations (e.g., evolution vs. creation science), may engender strong and hot responses (not to mention some level of dirty trickery on the part of partisans) but I think that many topics fall outside of this category. I'm willing to concede that there may be *some* people who have very strong feelings about the Meiji Restoration (i.e., the overthrow of the Tokugawa Shogunate and samurai-based "military" rule of Japan with the ascension of the Emperor as the head of Japan and the development of parliamentary government) and the potential role that the Shimabara Rebellion may have played but I think that this issue is so esoteric to most people that there would be little actual "warfare" about its presenntation in a Wikipedia entry. Certainly not at the level of an entry that, say, disputes the claims in support of a "Young Earth" explanation (i.e., Bible-based accounts of the age of the Earth). I wonder what topics in psychology might lead to similar "Holy Wars"? I think that Marc implies that there may be some. I recall that once there was a lot of "bad blood" between "Fechnerian" psychophysicists and the "Sons of Smitty Stevens" (i.e., Log law vs. Power law) but I think that Roger Shepard and others have shown that establishing the "psychophysical law" is far more complex than either Fechner or Stevens assumed (or were willing to assume) and some form of truce (i.e., easy or uneasy) exists today. Of course, the whole False Memory/Recovered Memory/Repressed Memory issue(s) does appear to qualify as a "Holy War" which appears to continue to rage but isn't this an issue that research psychologists should try to get presented as accurately as possible, even if does involve significant time and effort? Incidentally, on this point, some might find the following Reuters article on a Psy Science article interesting: http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSL2116863820070222 Then again, how many topics in psychology fall into the "Holy War" category? > I don't know that it would happen in history, but I could certainly see > it happening in psychology: If anyone can come along, believing him- or > herself possessed of True Knowledge about the subject, change entries, > I'm not sure it's worth the time. Well, which topics would inspire such zeal and persistence, outside of the Memory issues I've pointed out above? The validity of psychoanalysis? ESP? Perhaps we should reconceptualize providing entries to Wikipedia as being "teaching moments" but for a classroom that involves the whole world. Wouldn't that make it worth the effort? -Mike Palij New York University [EMAIL PROTECTED] > m --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
