atw: Re: WikiWatch: a new program for ABC1 or Radio National?
- From: "Geoffrey Marnell" <geoffrey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 21:18:04 +1000
Two more points for consideration:
. The veracity or otherwise of the Britannica is a red herring. We
are talking about Wikipedia. To claim that Wikipedia is reputable on the
grounds that the Britannica too has a credibility problem is an example of
the fallacy of ignoratio elenchi.
. I'm inclined to agree with Howard on the issue of whether experts
have time to contribute substantially to Wikipedia. My argument is the smell
test. Tony, as an academic, is likely to agree with me that academics get
little time to research these days. In the past, we had 50% teaching time
and 50% research time. Nowadays, it's more like 65% teaching time, 35%
administration and research . well you do that in your own time. Now I don't
think it's too much a leap of logic to suggest that knowledge is more likely
to be found in academia than elsewhere. It is not so universally, but it is
so generally. You don't find the smartest physicists outside universities,
nor the smartest linguists, nor the smartest philosophers. Very few private
sector organisations give free rein to intellectual pursuits and blue-sky
research. Now if the experts are more likely to be found in academia, and
they are pressed for time to advance knowledge, just how likely is it that
they will devote their time to monitoring and updating Wikipedia entries. A
Wikipedia entry gives them no professional acknowledgement, no citation
credits, no likelihood of accelerated career advancement. So why spend time
on Wikipedia when they could be spending the time writing papers for
journals that will give professional acknowledgement, citation credits, and
accelerated career advancement? I've asked 14 of my colleagues at Melbourne
University whether they have contributed to Wikipedia. Not one has. It's not
a question of money, as someone on this thread mentioned. It's question of
securing a tenuous hold on an academic posting. That takes a lot of time.
Papers in peer-reviewed journals count. Wikipedia contributions do not. To
put a not too fine a point it: few academic experts seem to be bothered
contributing to Wikipedia. They are just too busy. So who are the experts
contributing to Wikipedia? Scotch-soaked grogblossoms in second-rate
universities living out tenures who have no hope of achieving intellectual
acclaim? Or also-rans who are making up for their personal academic
disappointments? Or am I being too harsh?
Geoffrey Marnell
Principal Consultant
Abelard Consulting Pty Ltd
T: +61 3 9596 3456
F: +61 3 9596 3625
M: 0419 574 668
W: <http://www.abelard.com.au> www.abelard.com.au
Skype: geoffrey.marnell
Other related posts:
