3 ms·

I think if you want people to learn about a subject, it's probably better to edit Wikipedia than to write books or papers on it. It's the first (and last) place

I think if you want people to learn about a subject, it's probably better to edit Wikipedia than to write books or papers on it. It's the first (and last) place most people look.

voidhorse 6y ago
Yeah, but there's a huge difference between publishing bleeding edge research that may still have fluctuating epistemic status and publishing literature reviews/overviews/surveys of the core foundations of particular fields that are well-studied and proven. Most academic journals publish the former, not the latter. Academics are typically publishing research they think will push their fields forward some day or illuminate something as of yet misunderstood. These papers typically require lots of subject area knowledge about the current cutting edge research and landscape of very specialized fields--thus partly explaining the low readership. I think it'd be a mistake to try to jam everything, especially theories or results for which the jury is still out, into wikipedia. The average person is not typically scientifically literate and has difficulties distinguishing between claims that have substantial evidence and history backing them and more recent claims that are still being researched. Also, what's up with this article? It's quite insubstantial and has little to no content, let alone careful analysis of the situation. It's quite evident to me that it's biased garbage with an agenda of tricking poorly educated people into thinking modern higher-education is a waste of time and money (spoiler alert--it isn't, and without it we wouldn't even have many of the practical commercial developments (usually not associated w/ academia) we see today).
- abricot 6y ago
  > Academics are typically publishing research they think will push their fields forward some day or illuminate something as of yet misunderstood. Is that the dream or is it the reality? I think I've heard plenty of anecdotes to the contrary (or is it simply the self-derogatory way scholars talk amongst themselves)
  - candiodari 6y ago
    Why not both? Most research directions ... are useless, don't pan out, don't have the tools to actually achieve anything yet, won't ever get finance for necessary tooling, ... and fail. Useless is the least bad of these. Nevertheless, papers on these are important for a lot of reasons. And one in hundred research directions succeeds. And then there's tons of "refinement" papers. First reason: you won't know which is which until you try. Second: researchers learn a lot even when exploring things that won't work (in fact this is often done as exercise). Third: these allow institutions, infrastructure, ... to exist, to be ready when there is something that does pan out.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
tripleplay 6y ago
Original research is specifically forbidden on Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
- llarsson 6y ago
  I don't believe that is what the poster meant. I think the meaning is more like, "if the reason you love research is because you want humanity to learn more about a topic you know a lot about, you will have a larger impact by improving Wikipedia than by pushing out a survey article to a journal that nobody reads". Not that Wikipedia would be a good place to publish original research after having run a couple of experiments and stuffing your data into a table there.
  - ogogmad 6y ago
    You're right. That's indeed what I meant.

I think if you want people to learn about a subject, it's probably better to edit Wikipedia than to write books or papers on it. It's the first (and last) place most people look.

voidhorse 6y ago

Yeah, but there's a huge difference between publishing bleeding edge research that may still have fluctuating epistemic status and publishing literature reviews/overviews/surveys of the core foundations of particular fields that are well-studied and proven. Most academic journals publish the former, not the latter. Academics are typically publishing research they think will push their fields forward some day or illuminate something as of yet misunderstood. These papers typically require lots of subject area knowledge about the current cutting edge research and landscape of very specialized fields--thus partly explaining the low readership. I think it'd be a mistake to try to jam everything, especially theories or results for which the jury is still out, into wikipedia. The average person is not typically scientifically literate and has difficulties distinguishing between claims that have substantial evidence and history backing them and more recent claims that are still being researched. Also, what's up with this article? It's quite insubstantial and has little to no content, let alone careful analysis of the situation. It's quite evident to me that it's biased garbage with an agenda of tricking poorly educated people into thinking modern higher-education is a waste of time and money (spoiler alert--it isn't, and without it we wouldn't even have many of the practical commercial developments (usually not associated w/ academia) we see today).

abricot 6y ago
> Academics are typically publishing research they think will push their fields forward some day or illuminate something as of yet misunderstood. Is that the dream or is it the reality? I think I've heard plenty of anecdotes to the contrary (or is it simply the self-derogatory way scholars talk amongst themselves)
- candiodari 6y ago
  Why not both? Most research directions ... are useless, don't pan out, don't have the tools to actually achieve anything yet, won't ever get finance for necessary tooling, ... and fail. Useless is the least bad of these. Nevertheless, papers on these are important for a lot of reasons. And one in hundred research directions succeeds. And then there's tons of "refinement" papers. First reason: you won't know which is which until you try. Second: researchers learn a lot even when exploring things that won't work (in fact this is often done as exercise). Third: these allow institutions, infrastructure, ... to exist, to be ready when there is something that does pan out.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

tripleplay 6y ago

Original research is specifically forbidden on Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

llarsson 6y ago
I don't believe that is what the poster meant. I think the meaning is more like, "if the reason you love research is because you want humanity to learn more about a topic you know a lot about, you will have a larger impact by improving Wikipedia than by pushing out a survey article to a journal that nobody reads". Not that Wikipedia would be a good place to publish original research after having run a couple of experiments and stuffing your data into a table there.
- ogogmad 6y ago
  You're right. That's indeed what I meant.