steven l. rubenstein wrote:
Boy do I disagree with Shane. Yes, it is true that
relying on
previously published source sshifts the burden. But that doesn't mean
there is no difference. I can see a difference between our assuming the
burden, and editors of journals and publishers assuming the burden.
First, most academic articles and books go through a peer-review
process. This process has its flaws, but it does mean that authors are
held accountable to experts in the field on which they are writing.
Second, published books and articles are authored and authors are
accountable. This is not the case in Wikipedia where, as a
collaborative project, articles have no authors. Problems with
wikipedia articles are likely to be debated on talk pages, which may
lead to changes in articles -- an original, innovative, and interesting
process I am happy to participate in. But when scholarly books and
articles are published, professional researches in the field often go
out and try the experiments over, or re-check sources, or try to apply
theories to other situations, and then publish more articles or books
which carry research further. Our articles can report on this process
and the debates within academic fields it engenders, but we cannot be a
substitute for it.
That's not what I meant by "shifting the burden". I meant it shifts OUR
burden. Instead of evaluating theories, we're now evaluating sources
(who, as you point out, have evaluated the theories). I don't see any
fundamental difference between these activities: we're still making
judgment calls that we may not be equipped to make.
One of the big problems with peer-review is, as Shane
points out, that
it excludes ideas and research that peers do not find credible. There
certainly should be a venue for such indiosyncratic and potentially
ground-breaking work. The internet already provides a venue for
publicizing such work. I do not think the internet needs one more such
venue. There are, thanks to the WWW, now an almost infinite space for
people to present such fringe research. The question is, do we report
on it. I still say: no. If such fringe research has merit I truly
believe it will end up in a book or peer-reviewed journal. We all know
how much of what is our there is crap. I just don't think we should
waste reader's time with crap, and I think to include it in our
encyclopedia articles demeans the whole project. How do we decide what
is crap? We don't -- we let professional editors of journals and
presses do that, because that is their business. Wikipeida's strength
is that it is an amateur's venture, and that is indeed it is a
strength. It is also a weakness, and I see no reason why, in this one
case, we can't rely on the pros.
Sure, it will eventually turn up elsewhere. But we're an online
encyclopedia. Why should we tie ourselves to the old, slow methods? Part
of the beauty of wikipedia is that it is (or at least can be) up to the
minute up to date. To wait for things to appear offline reduces our
capacity to do that. I for one don't want that. If I wanted and out of
date encyclopedia, I'd buy Britannica. :)
Shane.