[Web4lib] Is Wikipedia Failing? -- follow up

Mon Feb 19 16:23:07 EST 2007

I think there's more to it than an anti-expert debate, though yes, I
believe that there is also some form of anti-expert issue in there.  In
the US Wikipedia editors' case I think that there's a deep
anti-academic debate hidden in there too.

The problem isn't with expertise it's with accreditation of expertise
based on external (to Wikipedia) criteria.  In this thing regular US-
based anti-academics can have the support of non-US editors for whom
the US notions of academia are completely or partially alien.

When you look at things like the Pokemon or Teenage mutant ninja
turtles (or STrek or SWars) articles and their hordes of companion
articles you notice that many people editing there are devoting
significant portions of their lives to their popular culture hobbies. 
They're very much experts but they're not academics in the US sense
since their topics do not yet have the patina required for that.

Another aspect of Wikipedia is the pro-dilettante attitude but that too
is a very broad brush, like the "anti-expert" one.

Alain Vaillancourt

--- "Craig, Emory" <ecraig at cnr.edu> a écrit :

> Meant to reply to Walt's comment the other day and while the
> Wikipedia thread is moving on (thanks Alain for that wonderful
> metaphor of the project as a giant amoeba) but let me briefly return
> to it. My choice of the MS debacle was probably not the best example
> given the complexity of that issue. Others (IBM so the rumors go)
> seem to do quite well getting revisions through Wikipedia and MS
> apparently would have fared better simply by being more deceptive. As
> Walt noted, Wikipedia's whitepaper suggestion is astonishing. We end
> up, as Nicholas Carr has pointed out, with this strange paradox of
> "an encyclopedia that anyone can edit," but perhaps off limits to
> experts who may have "gained deep enough knowledge of a subject to
> have developed a point of view." Carr is not off the mark in
> suggesting that this leads to a parody of the traditional editorial
> process. 
> 
>  
> 
> If anyone is interested, Carr's comments on the MS / Rick Jellife /
> Wikipedia matter are here (a nice URL!):
> 
>  
> 
> http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2007/01/experts_go_home.php
> <http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2007/01/experts_go_home.php> 
> 
>  
> 
> -e
> 
>  
> 
> Emory M. Craig
> Director of Academic Computing Services
> The College of New Rochelle
> New Rochelle, N.Y. 10805
> 914-654-5536
> www.cnr.edu <http://www.cnr.edu/>  
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> From: Crawford,Walt [mailto:crawforw at oclc.org]
> Sent: Fri 2/16/2007 3:04 PM
> To: Craig, Emory; Alain D. M. G. Vaillancourt; web4lib
> Subject: RE: [Web4lib] Is Wikipedia Failing?
> 
> 
> 
> The example Emory Craig provides is interesting but tricky: By all
> accounts, MS was trying to get errors corrected by paying an expert
> to say *whatever the expert wanted to say*--because MS couldn't do it
> directly. There was no attempt at secrecy, no attempt to control the
> message.
> 
> Wikipedia's response--"Commission a white paper and suggest that we
> link to it"--was astonishing.
> 
> Not quite as astonishing as the attitude toward anyone "tampering
> with" an entry on themselves--unless, of course, they're a Special
> Case like Cory Doctorow, who apparently is allowed to edit his own
> entry. Otherwise, you can't say you don't want to be in Wikipedia,
> you can't correct flagrant errors in your entry (unless you do so via
> meatpuppet or pseudonym)...well, it makes me happy I'm non-notable
> (in English, at least).
> 
> [Yes, I use Wikipedia...as a starting point. Yes, I've made
> edits...two of them. But also, yes, I have better things to do,
> especially since Alain V's experience is by no means unique.]
> 
> Walt Crawford
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: web4lib-bounces at webjunction.org
> [mailto:web4lib-bounces at webjunction.org] On Behalf Of Craig, Emory
> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 11:45 AM
> To: Alain D. M. G. Vaillancourt; web4lib
> Subject: RE: [Web4lib] Is Wikipedia Failing?
> 
> Alain,
> 
> You have a good point and one that Goldman misses -- the "shouting
> newcomer." If Wikipedia continues to be successful, I think marketers
> and self-promoters will eventually become an issue (an ex. that comes
> to mind is MS efforts to hire a blogger to change articles) in the
> future. But for now, there is enough of a challenge dealing with
> those whose knowledge is inversely proportional to their desire to be
> heard. I can see how it would wear you down.
> 
> -e
> 
> Emory Craig
> Director of Academic Computing
> The College of New Rochelle
> 914-654-5536
> 
> . . . . .
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Web4lib mailing list
> Web4lib at webjunction.org
> http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/
> 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
En finir avec le spam? Yahoo! Courriel vous offre la meilleure protection possible contre les messages non nollicités 
http://mail.yahoo.ca Yahoo! Courriel  