In what is, alas, probably too deadpan to be an April Fools' joke, Mark Wilson offers a breathtaking suggestion on Inside Higher Ed:
I propose that all academics with research specialties, no matter how arcane (and nothing is too obscure for Wikipedia), enroll as identifiable editors of Wikipedia. We then watch over a few wikipages of our choosing, adding to them when appropriate, stepping in to resolve disputes when we know something useful. We can add new articles on topics which should be covered, and argue that others should be removed or combined. This is not to displace anonymous editors, many of whom possess vast amounts of valuable information and innovative ideas, but to add our authority and hard-won knowledge to this growing universal library.
The advantages should be obvious. First, it is another outlet for our scholarship, one that may be more likely to be read than many of our journals. Second, we are directly serving our students by improving the source they go to first for information. Third, by identifying ourselves, we can connect with other scholars and interested parties who stumble across our edits and new articles. Everyone wins.
Yes, this is exactly what we need. If you think Wikipedia edit wars are pointlessly nasty and petty now, just wait until you see what happens when you get academics involved... There's nothing nastier or more tenacious than credentialed scholars squabbling about their area of research. They're like pit bulls who can quote Lacan, only slightly more likely to clamp their teeth to your genitals and refuse to let go.
And I don't even want to think about the issues involved in treating Wikipedia entries as another official outlet for scholarly writing.
Yeesh.
Technology
Education & Careers
Comments
Wiki is great but it has more than enough blocs as it is. On anything ppl are likely to take a passionate interest in I find I learn more from the talk page than the actual article.
Anything they added from personal knowledge would count as original research so I dont really see the point unless the plan is just to cite themselves as a source.
Yay for censorship?Posted by: tincture | April 2, 2008 11:01 AM
They're like pit bulls who can quote Lacan, only slightly more likely to clamp their teeth to your genitals and refuse to let go.
Oh my. What would Freud say?
Posted by: John Novak | April 2, 2008 12:56 PM
I'm not at all involved with wikipedia except as an occasional user. My first intimation that there was something rotten was when I went looking for the Fafblog page a few months ago, and found it had been removed. That didn't, and doesn't, make any sense to me. Fafblog itself was still up, tho inactive, and I was hoping for some news about it. Was wiki suddenly running short of electrons or something? I've since learned more about the edit wars, and am fairly disgusted by the whole thing.
But, speaking of Fafblog, The Quantum Pontiff has noticed that it is BACK! fafblog.blogspot.com, bless their hearts. rb
Posted by: arby | April 2, 2008 3:25 PM