Moink makes a good point. I've been involved with both disciplines
(trained in engineering but doing research in media studies), which is
probably why I have unusual views on this.
However, I believe the proposal to get more academics involved goes
the wrong way - instead of modifying Wikipedia processes to be
attractive to the "academic methods", it should be the other way
around. Find ways to get traditional academic folks to contribute
using the "wisdom of crowds" method. One way might be to be able to
conveniently email a link to an article to someone, and say "This
article could use your expertise, could you help us out?" Academics
are not averse to contributing to encyclopedias - they are asked to do
so quite often.
Also, what Abe describes would likely be incompatible with the "no
original research" policy we've had for a while. Rather, Wikipedia
(and most encyclopedias) are secondary source works, not primary
battlegrounds for ideas.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 13:49:50 -0400, moink <theresa.robinson(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 15:37:55 +1000, Tim Starling
<ts4294967296(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
Abe wrote:
"Academia" is the name for a huge
institutionalized process of peer
review. Wikipedia is peer review on steroids, so you'd think that
academics would be clamoring to contribute to Wikipedia, especially since
academia and Wikipedia both love free expression and open discourse. The
difference is, academia is peer review with competition for prestige and
resources, and Wikipedia is not.
I don't know what academia you're familiar with, but where I'm from, I'm
told not to publish any source code for fear of losing competitive
advantage, and to patent anything that looks potentially useful via the
spin-off company. A spin-off company which doesn't do anything, it just
owns patents and spends large amounts of money "maintaining" them.
Publishing results is OK as long as everyone knows which fabulous
world-class group produced them.
This is primarily a result of IP protection and commercialisation being
seen as important for our national interests, and therefore an important
part of deciding how to allocate Federal research grants.
Abe's version is more prevalent in the humanities, while Tim's version
more accurately reflects the sciences, and in particular, engineering.
moink
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
--
Andrew Lih
andrew.lih(a)gmail.com