3 ms·

academia still doesn't trust the Internet. Partially because the internet is academia's competition. For centuries, academia was able to keep their knowledge

by mdasen 18y ago

academia still doesn't trust the Internet. Partially because the internet is academia's competition. For centuries, academia was able to keep their knowledge locked away because, while many knew a little, they were the only ones who knew enough (both in breadth and depth) to really teach you anything. Today, the internet's communal nature makes up for the fact that most of us don't have the breadth or depth that they have - we each contribute a little and it becomes more than the breadth or depth than they have. Is it surprising that they don't trust the internet? "Wikipedia is unreliable!" That's because people who use Wikipedia have less reason to buy knowledge from you. "Open source is fraught with patent liability problems!" That's because no one will pay for outrageous licenses from you if they can get it for free. "Automation creates inferior products!" That's because no one is going to pay your high union wages if they can get a machine to do a better job than you for less money. All of those statements have the potential to be true. I'm sure they are true in some cases. In the majority of cases, it just isn't true. But your way of life is potentially on the way out and there's a catalyst of that change that you can campaign against so you do.

jrockway 18y ago
Extremely well said. I think the academics specifically dislike Wikipedia because the information has to stand on its own merit, rather than the author's reputation. They are used to being able to say, "I say this is true." and having everyone believe them. In the WikiWorld, that doesn't fly.
pg 18y ago
Professors don't distrust Wikipedia because they regard it as a threat to their supposed monopoly on learning. (They don't regard themselves as as a single unit at all.) The reason they distrust Wikipedia is that there's no accountability. The problem is not that it's online, but that the work is unsigned. I think you're misunderstanding the value of Wikipedia. Its main value is as a fast source of leads, not as a source of authoritative answers.
- prakash 18y ago
  Its main value is as a fast source of leads, not as a source of authoritative answers. Do you say this in general or with the specific DRM/Academic context? Wikipedia, to me, provides fantastic summaries and quite often an authoritative source, as much as I would believe a major news source, sometimes there is more trust in wikipedia.

by mdasen 18y ago

jrockway 18y ago

Extremely well said. I think the academics specifically dislike Wikipedia because the information has to stand on its own merit, rather than the author's reputation. They are used to being able to say, "I say this is true." and having everyone believe them. In the WikiWorld, that doesn't fly.

pg 18y ago

Professors don't distrust Wikipedia because they regard it as a threat to their supposed monopoly on learning. (They don't regard themselves as as a single unit at all.) The reason they distrust Wikipedia is that there's no accountability. The problem is not that it's online, but that the work is unsigned. I think you're misunderstanding the value of Wikipedia. Its main value is as a fast source of leads, not as a source of authoritative answers.

prakash 18y ago
Its main value is as a fast source of leads, not as a source of authoritative answers. Do you say this in general or with the specific DRM/Academic context? Wikipedia, to me, provides fantastic summaries and quite often an authoritative source, as much as I would believe a major news source, sometimes there is more trust in wikipedia.