5 ms·
Science and Wikipedia
- deleted 18y ago[deleted]
- michael_dorfman 18y agoStrange article. The author writes: "Given that Wikipedia’s stated vision is to give every single person in the world free access to the sum of all human knowledge, you might guess it was started by scientists eager to collect all of human knowledge into a single source. [...] Even today, contributing to Wikipedia is regarded as a low-value activity by most professional scientists." What he seems to be ignoring is that the means that Wikipedia chose also allows "read/write" access to that "sum total of human knowledge," and that part of the reason that scientists might regard editing Wikipedia as a "low-value" activity is that their contributions stand a significant chance of being reverted or mangled by pretty much anyone with a keyboard.
- michael_nielsen 18y agoI wasn't ignoring that. I've asked numerous scientists why they don't contribute. The common answer given by every single one of those people was the answer I give in the article - essentially, contributions to Wikipedia are not something they can put on their CV. One of these people also raised the read / write point you mention, and, for him, it was the more important issue.
- michael_dorfman 18y agoSure, but how can you put something on your CV when it can disappear (or be edited beyond recognition) 5 minutes after you post it? Wikipedia has a fundamentally different process than traditional publishing-- so while the goal of "free access to the sum of human knowledge" may sound similar to the goals of the academy, the reality is very different.
- michael_nielsen 18y agoYour comment nicely summarizes the point of my article. The obvious conclusion to draw is that there is something quite wrong with the way the academy is going about things. Edit: As a tangential point, Wikipedia uses version control, so all edits are preserved in a version history. Not that it matters in this case - Wikipedia edits aren't journal publications, and so most academics would prefer to keep them off their CV.
- michael_dorfman 18y agoInteresting-- I thought the obvious conclusion to draw is that there is something quite wrong with the way Wikipedia is going about things.
- michael_nielsen 18y agoSo you think that Wikipedia isn't useful?
- michael_dorfman 18y agoIt's useful, in the way a public bathroom is useful-- you're glad it's there when you need it, but the experience really depends upon the behavior of the last guy to use it before you. I'll take peer reviewed (or even just professionally edited) content over Wikipedia, anytime. But, it's certainly better than nothing.