all 111 comments

[–][deleted] 65 points66 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I am a former research scientist (neuroscience) and am currently a professional freelance medical writer. I tried to contribute to wikipedia once. I don't remember the exact topic, but it had something to do with treatment of some mental health issue, a topic on which I had just written an extensive review article. I wrote a pretty nice 2 to 3 paragraph summary with about 10 references. Within an hour someone had deleted it. Why would any academic, or anyone else with other things to do, bother with this?

[–]drzowie 42 points43 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I agree entirely with this sentiment. I am an academic with well over 1,000 edits and dozens of new articles. I stopped actively editing about 3 years ago after one too many wrangles with deletionists. Fighting with cranks (like the Electric Universe people) and vandals was tolerable, but self-appointed gatekeepers who believe there isn't enough room for, say, an article on an in-progress $200M observatory on Hawaii or an inteesting but obscure musical instrument are not. a big attraction of Wikipedia for me was that it would develop a page for absolutely everything, obscure or not -- and why not, with essentially infinite space? I never "got" the deletionists' motivation -- why would you deliberately remove useful information, even if it is a bit obscure?

In the end, it just isn't worth my time and aggro to contribute if there's a good chance i will have to also waste hours defending the work on AfD. I would rather make snarky comments on Reddit and spend my creative energy working on peer reviewed articles.

[–]captainLAGER 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

What satisfaction do mods get from deleting perfectly valid additions to the wiki?

[–]earynspieir 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

They lack expertise in the field in question, but get to overrule edits by more knowledgeable people because of their extensive knowledge about what a wiki site should look like.

Or simply because they themselves did an edit on the article at some point in time and consider the article "perfect" or "complete", so they monitor the article and overrule any edits coming in.

Some just mod way too much, browsing recently updated articles and revert to the previous version if there is ANYTHING slightly off with the new version rather than fixing the article (possibly because they don't really have sufficient knowledge of the topic).

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

it all depends on the availabilities of reliable sources.

[–]drzowie 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I am not sure what you mean by that. I have had articles nominated for deletion despite having citations into the refereed literature. It is almost de rigeur for a new article to be AfD'd (at least, in my experience).

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

that depends. I may not find an article which specifically talk about, say "The influence of Japanese perception of technology on anime" but this is a theme which get mentioned sometimes in many reliable sources.

But by creating an article titled "Technology in Anime", I'm probably committing an original research by the act of assembling under a theme of my own creation.

[–]drzowie 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Now I understand. Yes' at is an example of why academics like me frequently do not contribute. Five years ago, assembling related topics would not have been considered original research. Now, apparently, it is.

But that is it specifically what I was complaining about -- in particular, the notability requirement (originally put in to prevent, say, Aunt Gladys from getting her own page -- unless she was notable for something else) has gotten increasingly strong and, to my mind, over-strict in that it limits topics that are of interest to more than a few people but not to the mainstream; and that it restricts the amount of detail that can be put into a subject (even under subheadings or standalone sub articles) without an ongoing anti-deletionist fight. Cintributing to WP is essentially a procrastinatory endeavor for someone like me who does research for a living; and elevating it to a fight complete with invective just drives us away.

[–]scorpion032 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[citation needed]

No, really. Would add a lot of credibility to your statement, if you can find the particular diff, you added and that was deleted.

[–]RPLLL 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Why is this being down voted?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You are only supposed to agree with people here.

[–]Aes0p 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

agreed

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Contribute to Scholarpedia instead.

[–]yorian -3 points-2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Don't expect to try something new and that everything will go as planned. Have you tried to talk with the one who deleted your contribution?

The open nature of Wikipedia has the downside that people are very suspicious about anonymous contributions, so at least make a userpage about yourself, that helps a lot. I did a lot of checking for Wikipedia, and when in doubt I deleted an anonymous contribution pretty fast. I did leave a note for the contributor though.

[–][deleted] 24 points25 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

As I recall, the person who deleted my contribution made a note to the effect that it "puts too much emphasis on drug therapy" or something like that. If they felt like posting more information about alternative therapies, they could have done that without deleting my contribution. I didn't really have the time or interest to get into a big argument about it with some random person on the internet.

Academics have a lot of time pressures managing their careers. Many are very committed to teaching and public dissemination of research. But very few are going to want to spend time debating and defending their contributions with every random person who has a bone to pick with what they write.

[–]uber_ninja 8 points9 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Good point, when you have a real job it's hard to beat out a 13 year old wiki editor who has all the time in the world to edit your stuff

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This is the same reason I've never been interested in online gaming.

[–]pounds 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Maybe this person realizes they failed in their career and landed as a wikipedia editor... so the only power in the field they have is to make things difficult for those that are more successful as a way of feeling above you. A feeling of empowerment, maybe.

[–]yorian -2 points-1 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yeah, the most amazing cooperative effort that exists today (IMHO) is entirely made by losers who have too much time.

[–]fultonla 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I've never understood the argument "too much time".

Bertrand Russel has an interesting view on the matter as well.

[–]hardman52 -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You mean Reddit?

[–]yorian 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Well, I don't know the situation so I don't know who was right or wrong, but remember that to the other person you are also a random person from the internet. The other one can't smell if you're an expert or not. I get that a lot of academics are busy, but that doesn't mean that you can contribute to Wikipedia without any knowledge or without investing some time looking around or discussing your contributions, because the anonymous nature of Wikipedia creates a system where everybody is equal, whether you like it or not. I'm not saying this is a good situation, because that does mean that experts are reluctant to contribute to Wikipedia (why should I waste my time?), but it's really the only way because of the anonymous nature of Wikipedia contributions.

[–]Mordor 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Any situation in which a moron has the same credibility as a wise man reduces knowledge to nothing. Wikipedia lacks depth and because of that, accuracy. For me, it's a system better than all the others... until it's replaced :p

[–]yorian 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You should check out Citizendium, maybe that's more to your liking.

[–]nalf38 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

"to the other person you are also a random person from the internet"

True, and that's why so many academics are disinterested in contributing. We're not random people, we're experts in our fields. Our knowledge is our currency, so there's no valid reason for us to wade into a system where our knowledge of the subject doesn't count any more than a housewife's in Brighton.

[–]yorian 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

True, this has frustrated a lot of people, but I think it can't be solved really. There is Citizendium of course ( http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Welcome_to_Citizendium ), but that hasn't really taken of yet it seems.

[–]the_onanist -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

There needs to be some way to verify your identity and credentials, and then allow you to "lock" certain edits or pages that fall within the range of your proven expertise. For example, you could reword and summarize your review article on Wikipedia, and then lock it from further editing. I think that might solve a lot of problems.

[–]greenrd[S] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That's not what Wikipedia is all about. If you want something more along those lines, try Citizendium, which despite its misleading name, is all about experts having more power.

[–]hardman52 -2 points-1 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

No, onanist is right. Some changes in how FA and GA articles can be edited are going to have to be instituted. Otherwise editor attrition is going to eventually kill the encyclopedia.

[–]greenrd[S] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Why would I want to bring an article up to FA status if I would then be locked out from editing it as soon as it hit FA status!? This proposal would imply a far greater disincentive to contibutors, the majority of whom are not experts.

[–]hardman52 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

So to you "some changes" = "lock out"?

I meant onanist was right in that some new ideas are going to have to be tried. I helped topic-ban an SPA editor who was disruptive for four years and who ran off countless good-faith editors before he was finally topic banned. These kinds of editors do more damage to Wikipedia than any restrictions can.

[–]Hookhand 14 points15 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Academics DO contribute to Wikipedia. Constantly.

[–]thebyblian 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think the big factor holding back many academics is that Wikipedia is not peer editing.

While it's one thing to have your work edited by someone equally or more knowledgeable than you, it's unnerving to have someone with no real awareness of the field come and edit things based on an outdated citation.

Also, hate to simplify it thus, but remember-- Wikipedia deals with facts. Academics deal with arguments.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

wikipedia argue about references. academic create references.

[–]greenrd[S] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

While it's one thing to have your work edited by someone equally or more knowledgeable than you, it's unnerving to have someone with no real awareness of the field come and edit things based on an outdated citation.

Unfortunately, this also happens ocassionally in peer review. And it's not based on an outdated citation, either - it's based on some half-remembered "knowledge" or misunderstanding.

[–]forker88 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I knew many professors in school who regularly contributed to Wikipedia. One actually made a correction during class while bringing up a page to show an image. Another made Wikipedia improvements (with citations) a weekly class assignment for a class of about 100 students.

[–]hardman52 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That is what needs to happen more often.

[–]peter1402 18 points19 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

"Everything I write will get changed or removed before long." this.

[–]TheLobotomizer 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I still have plenty of edits ranging from 2005-2007 that are still completely untouched.

[–][deleted] ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[deleted]

    [–]greenrd[S] -1 points0 points ago

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    Um, no it isn't, and that's not always what happens. I wrote an obscure article that hasn't been edited by anyone else, yet.

    [–][deleted] ago

    sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

    [deleted]

      [–]jarvis400 1 point2 points ago

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      Keep up the good work!

      [–]Gned11 8 points9 points ago

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      One of my professors once slagged off wikipedia as an unreliable source. I know she was right, but I was deeply annoyed by her attitude: if she was aware of specific inaccuracies on pages relevant to her course material, which she was, then why on earth did she not bother to correct them?

      [–]antonulrich 25 points26 points ago

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      No, it's a reliable source. At least when compared to newspapers, textbooks or other encyclopedias. See e.g. http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-accurate-as-Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html.

      Maybe she meant "not a primary source". That's another story.

      [–]BeetleB 5 points6 points ago

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      No, it's a reliable source.

      No, it's a mostly anonymous source. That it is mostly correct is not a factor. The point of sourcing is to know the identity of the author or group, and that's very hard to do on Wikipedia.

      [–]greenrd[S] 0 points1 point ago

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      And even when it isn't anonymous, it shouldn't be used as a primary source on anything, except possibly itself.

      [–]aardvarkious 8 points9 points ago

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      Because someone who knows less but is more invested in wikipedia would go and "recorrect" them latter the same day.

      [–]Gned11 1 point2 points ago

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      Quite possibly, but not being involved in the wikipedia community at all, she has no evidentiary basis upon which to base such pessimistic (if, in fact, accurate) beliefs. Her refusal to participate at all excludes her from using excuses like that, even if they happen to be true!

      [–]aardvarkious 0 points1 point ago

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      Unless she knows of the many other people who had participated and been burnt.

      [–]Gned11 0 points1 point ago

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      She certainly might, but she didn't bother to explain her antagonistic view towards wikipedia with any such examples. Her attitude was one of mixed apathy and mistrust at the very idea of a site like this, and that's what pissed me off.

      [–]WolterHunter -1 points0 points ago

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      Oh boo hoo. Someone didn't bend over backwards to appease you and now you're upset! Waaaaah!

      [–]Gned11 0 points1 point ago

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      This has nothing to do with appeasing me, nor am I upset. I can point out an all-too-common and largely unwarranted disdain for wikipedia among academics without turning into a mewling child.

      [–]poeir 8 points9 points ago

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      Because she has better things to do with her time than babysit a Wikipedia article, like original research.

      [–]Gned11 1 point2 points ago

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      There's a difference between babysitting an article, and taking (literally) 5 minutes to edit a particularly gratuitous error that she might have spotted. Given that she must have already been reading the page in question in order to spot any such mistakes, it can hardly be considered going out of her way.

      [–]poeir 3 points4 points ago

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      It's not going to be five minutes, one time. It's going to be five minutes, over and over again. It adds up and takes away from more career-impacting things.

      [–]Gned11 1 point2 points ago

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      Again, quite possibly, if she wants the page to remain accurate. But without having ever tried to participate, she can't know that her attempts at editing might turn out to be futile. And it's unreasonable for her to assume, based on bare intuition, that useful corrections will be casually undone! If she had a go then discovered the community resisted positive change, and on those grounds decided wikipedia was worthless, I would have no gripe with her. As it is, she refused to try, and not for a good reason like the one you just outlined.

      [–]sje46 1 point2 points ago

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a source. It's supposed to be a summary of the consensus of the data, and it's supposed to redirect you to further sources.

      [–]Gned11 0 points1 point ago

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      You're right- by 'source', I meant 'reference tool', not a potential citation in itself. Apologies for the ambiguity.

      [–][deleted] ago

      sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

      [deleted]

        [–]LonelyNixon 2 points3 points ago*

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        You do realize that even before the newfangled internet professors didn't like you citing normal encyclopedias either, right?

        [–][deleted] ago

        sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

        [deleted]

          [–]LonelyNixon 5 points6 points ago*

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          It's not a primary source. The beauty of it was that it gave you a summary of the subject you didn't know and it cited various books and articles that you could use as citations and to extend your research.

          [–]thebyblian 2 points3 points ago

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          I love Wikipedia and all, but I would never cite it.

          [–][deleted] ago

          sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

          [deleted]

            [–]thebyblian 7 points8 points ago

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            It's not that it's not reliable, but it's that it's unaccountable.

            [–]Gned11 0 points1 point ago

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            ...Come again? You lost me there.

            [–][deleted] 8 points9 points ago

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            One of my professors changed what he knew to be some total BS in an article he was reading. It was reverted in hours because it was not properly cited, and it contradicted a source. The 'source' was some random blog. My prof e-mailed the blogger and explained to him why he was wrong and the guy very graciously e-mailed back that wow, he didn't actually know that much about that matter, and thanks for informing him.

            Alas, the Wikipedia page still has total BS on it.

            [–]Frix 1 point2 points ago

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            Wikipedia actually has very high standards for readability and source citation. Many academics who are rather lax with these things, especially in area's they master perfectly, would find a hard time getting an uncited text included...

            What they should do is publish it in a "reliable source" and then cite that source in the comment-pages so that someone else (preferably a journalist) can write a decent text.

            [–][deleted] 7 points8 points ago

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            I think you haven't read much peer-reviewed published work.

            The standards in academia regarding sources is far, far, far, far... (Include some more fars. Thirty to forty should do it.), far higher in academia than in journalism.

            Also, many academics are excellent writers, both precise and concise. They have to be in order to get anyone to publish their work.

            [–]alpaca_in_oc 0 points1 point ago

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            I think he's trying to say journalists can write it in a way that the lay person can understand, as opposed to the dense (albeit precise/concise) read that is primary literature.

            [–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            Actually, a lot of academics are great at that too. They write research proposals to people outside of their field (or indeed outside of any field), they write books, they write literature reviews designed to be accessible to a wider audience, they write lectures for first-year undergraduates...

            The stereotypical image of a scientist, detached from reality and unable to communicate his ideas, applies to a minority. Unless you're a true genius, your career will falter if you cannot communicate with people outside of your field.

            [–]Mordor 2 points3 points ago

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            Journalists print what people want, the truth be damned. It has always been this way. News isn't information, just a diet satisfying a paying audience.

            There's no truth in music either, yet they copyright it!

            [–]hardman52 0 points1 point ago

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            No, he's saying that journalists usually don't care all that much about getting things right, which is one reason I'm a former journalist (the other reason is money). TV news is wrong 80 percent of the time; newspapers 50 percent, and other print journalism about 25 percent. The Internet is shooting for 100 percent.

            News is entertainment designed to attract an audience for advertisers. If you think it's anything other than that you're naive or brainwashed, most likely both.

            [–]BeetleB 0 points1 point ago

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            Wikipedia actually has very high standards for readability and source citation.

            ... for certain articles.

            Edited obscure articles often enough to know that it takes a lot of work to correct issues when you have, say, five other editors who are bent on controlling the article.

            Sure, I could put in the effort and ultimately fix the problem, but most people don't have the time to do that every time it happens. I would never encourage a busy academic to spend his/her time on this.

            [–]hardman52 0 points1 point ago

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            "Wikipedia actually has very high standards for readability and source citation."

            But the number of articles that don't follow those standards range in the millions. The process for getting rid of SPA and tendentious editors is so time consuming that most editors throw in the towel and let them have their way.

            [–]ImperfectlyInformed 0 points1 point ago

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            This shouldn't happen, and in my experience (several years of daily Wikipedia editing) has never really happened. Blogs are not reliable sources unless they are officially hosted or the author has been published previously.

            [–]greenrd[S] 0 points1 point ago

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            It does happen sometimes in computing articles. Actually in computing articles it can sometimes be hard to tell the difference between a one-person blog and an official/edited publication.

            [–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago*

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            Scholarpedia.

            I know a good number of my peers that maintain pages here, and not only that, but they cite them as references in their publications. Respected, professional scientists are using this as a reference.

            ... Scholarpedia differs from Wikipedia in some very important ways:

            • Each article is written by an expert.

            • Each article is anonymously peer reviewed to ensure accurate and reliable information.

            • Each article has a curator -- typically its author -- who is responsible for its content.

            • Any modification of the article needs to be approved by the curator before it appears in the final, approved version.

            It addresses most of the complaints that academics have about wikipedia.

            edit: formatting

            [–]NueDumaz 2 points3 points ago

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            Counting to ten is too hard.
            Buy an abacus.

            [–]greenrd[S] 0 points1 point ago

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            It started out as 10... but it was on a wiki, so...

            [–]cypherx 2 points3 points ago

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            First of all, many academics do contribute to wikipedia. I don't think the contributions are equally distributed across disciplines (see the quality of math articles vs. sociology), but they're still significant.

            Now, you could ask why don't more academics contribute? I think a big factor is that domain-knowledge really isn't democratic. I wasted a week of my life trying to clean up articles related to the archaeological record of ancient Palestine/Judea/Canaan/etc.. and was overwhelmed and defeated by the army of cranks who guard those articles. Why bother arguing with someone whose primary source is the Bible when you could be doing something useful instead?

            [–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            The should be focusing on creating the primary source. Wikipedia's job is to reference it.

            [–]JackMontana 2 points3 points ago

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            Some of it has to do with a curmudgeonly attitude towards Wikipedia in general. These attitudes may change with time.

            The bigger reason is that active researchers don't have any free time that they can donate to editing articles. A member of my PhD committee told me this: "If you have enough time to edit a wikipedia article, you're not doing your job" Those researchers that do have time are usually older and more likely to have the curmudgeonly attitude.

            I've caught myself 15 minutes deep into editing an article and realized that I could be writing an article for publication in a journal instead.

            [–]Horatio__Caine 5 points6 points ago

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            Most important reason, according to a professor of mine:

            It's impossible to tell people, "I wrote X article" as a professional reference if they go to X article and see "DISREGARD THAT I SUCK COCKS" written at the top.

            [–]Samus_ 7 points8 points ago

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            I think wikipedia is not meant for original research, you should instead publish to a more traditional (and respectable) source for your field and then go to wikipedia and write citing your work.

            the problem I see is that those people are not worried about sharing their knowledge for humansake, they only care about their ego (e.g. "I wrote that article") and that sucks.

            [–]Frix 1 point2 points ago

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            the problem I see is that those people are not worried about sharing their knowledge for humansake, they only care about their ego

            But if they published their work in a scientific journal then they DID share it with humanity... Just the part of humanity who cares and will work with your knowledge.

            [–]Vithar 2 points3 points ago

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            And everyone who has the $$ to buy the journal or article.

            [–]osfn8 1 point2 points ago

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            That's representative of a major problem with science. Normal people have no idea what scientists are doing because most of them either suck at or don't care about explaining to people what they do. Because of this, there are global warming and evolution deniers everywhere. The most publicly accessible science is astronomy and that's mainly because of the pretty pictures.

            [–]greenrd[S] 0 points1 point ago

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            I think it has less to do with astronomy's pretty pictures and more to do with Exxon and the tobacco companies. And right-wing "think-tanks". And bible-bashing fundamentalists.

            [–]Samus_ 0 points1 point ago

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            besides the fact that most scientific journals aren't available to anyone, the matter is that those are aimed at different audiences; wikipedia is meant to be universal (both in content and privileges) so it remains the fact that is an inconvenient source if you're looking for publicity.

            [–]Horatio__Caine 0 points1 point ago

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            the problem I see is that those people are not worried about sharing their knowledge for humansake, they only care about their ego (e.g. "I wrote that article") and that sucks.

            You know what doesn't feed your family? Contributing to wikipedia.

            [–]Samus_ 0 points1 point ago

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            you should think a bit more about that, it's not as simple as "money" otherwise neither wikipedia nor the free software would be possible.

            [–]antonulrich 10 points11 points ago

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            I know several academics who contribute to Wikipedia.

            I also know many academics with whom I'm rather happy that they do not contribute to Wikipedia, because their contributions would suck. In some respects, such as relevancy, readability, and text organization, Wikipedia's standards are much higher than those of academic publications.

            [–]Calibas 6 points7 points ago

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            Wow, this makes academics look extremely selfish and far more concerned with their own careers than spreading knowledge. I think this has something to do with the competitiveness taught in schools. You aren't really encouraged to help people out, in fact, if you're graded on a curve, you actually benefit from keeping your peers ignorant.

            [–][deleted] ago

            sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

            [deleted]

              [–]Calibas 1 point2 points ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              If you don't look after your own career and make provisions for it with a lot of energy, you won't spread much knowledge.

              Except that this link shows an example of how spreading knowledge can actually damage your academic career...

              [–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              Yes, but this is a list of the reasons people don't contribute.

              It's NOT a list of the opinions of every academic on contributing to Wikipedia.

              [–]thebyblian 2 points3 points ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              Right, because it's selfish to do your job and make a living.

              If anything, it has to do with competitiveness in the post-doc job market. Not getting tenure can effectively make you academic roadkill, so you can't really fault a lot of the younger generation probably aware of the wiki-process for not being able to dedicate much time.

              [–]Calibas 3 points4 points ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              It's certainly not selfish to do your job and make a living, it's how you do your job and make a living that may be selfish. You're oversimplifying what I said to the point it sounds absurd (Reductio ad absurdum).

              Perhaps the competitiveness in the post-doc job market, has something to do with competitiveness taught beforehand.

              [–]thebyblian 4 points5 points ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              I'm pretty sure the competitive nature of the post-doc job market has more to do with the availability of positions rather than any inured "competitiveness."

              I apologize if you felt that I oversimplified your argument, but I felt you in fact reduced the field. Teaching is but only one function of an academic.

              Non oportet se reductionem ad absurdum docere. Id scio.

              [–]Calibas 0 points1 point ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              Pardon me, I was under the illusion that academics were concerned with spreading knowledge. Thanks for clearing that up.

              [–]thebyblian 0 points1 point ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              I'm sorry. Who accused whom of reductio ad absurdum?

              [–]Calibas 0 points1 point ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              But everybody else is doing it.

              I was under the illusion that academics were more concerned with spreading knowledge than furthering their own careers. What you've said and what I've read from the link makes me think otherwise.

              [–]JackMontana 2 points3 points ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              I think you're disappointment results from the false premise that academics choose a research career because they want to spread knowledge. That may be true for teachers at lower levels and full-time lecturers, but it is very far down the list on motivations for obtaining a PhD and performing research.

              In my experience, most academics are doing their research because they find it personally interesting and are supremely engaged in the subject. Many actually think of teaching as an unwanted distraction, but necessary for them to pursue their research interests.

              Though academics clearly think that what they study is interesting and important, most couldn't be bothered to care if you agree or not.

              Very few are excellent teachers. If we were better at it, perhaps we could inspire even more students to pursue similar careers.

              When you spend every waking minute reading/reviewing/writing articles and grant proposals, preparing for your lectures and trying to maintain a family... doing the good work of spreading knowledge on Wikipedia often gets a low billing.

              [–]thebyblian 0 points1 point ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              The spread of knowledge and the advancement of an academic's career go hand in hand. They're not mutually exclusive.

              So really, it seems that the disagreement between us from whether or not Wikipedia is the most effective way to spread knowledge.

              [–]Calibas 0 points1 point ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              With millions of hits a day, I dare say that Wikipedia may be a more effective way of spreading knowledge than a university. Perhaps that has something to do with why I see a lot of resistance to Wikipedia coming from academics, they don't want the competition. It's a threat to the university's income if all their knowledge is freely available.

              "I just paid $100,000 for all this knowledge, why should I give it away for free?"

              [–]quartermann 2 points3 points ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              100% correct. Once you realize this, you don't spend time seeking a PhD for research purposes.

              [–]lectrick 1 point2 points ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              Academics originate knowledge.

              Wikipedia refuses to host original information that can't yet be verified elsewhere.

              Ergo...

              [–]mintyy -1 points0 points ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              Attitudes-9 is a little worrisome (I do not want others to see the mistakes I make).

              These mistakes have made it through traditional editing, revising and publishing? Are they not afraid of their academic peers seeing their errors in the traditional distribution? If so to any of the above, are they comfortable with their mistake-ridden work being cited and referenced in a variety of institutional applications?

              [–]Twenty26six 0 points1 point ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              I think this illustrates what academia has become in our culture. It's function is not to convey information for the sake of conveying information, but to make a business out of doing so. I'm not saying professors and teachers shouldn't be paid, but applying a competitive business-like-model to academia decreases the value and effectiveness of our educational system.

              This is why I'd like to teach at a community college or small undergrad when I'm finished with my grad degree. Of course some of these sorts of institutions still function more like businesses than schools, but at least the publish-or-perish facet is removed.

              [–]rmrrose820 8 points9 points ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              I agree that academia has become a business, but it's important to note that the greater cause of this has little to do with the academics themselves and more with the administrators and boards of trustees. Professors have to work within a system that values how much money/recognition they can bring in, even though it is at odds with the values of academic work.

              It does decrease the value and quality of the educational system by 1) limiting its dispersal of knowledge beyond the university and 2) by marginalizing less profitable disciplines (i.e., humanities and social sciences).

              I'm a Ph.D. student and I don't contribute to Wikipedia because I generally use most of my stolen time to post on Reddit instead. :)

              [–][deleted] ago

              sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

              [deleted]

                [–]Vithar 0 points1 point ago

                sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                Me to, thanks for the motivation...

                [–]nalf38 0 points1 point ago

                sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                community colleges are much worse than other colleges in terms of changing to a business model, in my experience. you'd have a better time at the small undergrad.

                [–]Twenty26six 0 points1 point ago

                sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                I agree some CCs have had a tendency to convert over to the business model more than small undergrads or other institutions, but given the current economic climate and the fact that I'll be finishing with an MS and not a PhD, I'll take whatever I can get.

                [–]ImperfectlyInformed 0 points1 point ago

                sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                Professors don't really get paid much for publishing. They get to keep their job, yes, but really it's not as competitive as people say. My take is there's just a lot of old people in academia who don't really understand Wikipedia. Plus Wikipedia's technology doesn't make it easy to keep tabs on an article or certain sections of an article.

                [–]cyrano111 0 points1 point ago

                sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

                Personally I think this question is wrong. It implies some responsibility to contribute to Wikipedia and wonders why academics don't fulfill it. There's a responsibility to contribute to knowledge in general, sure, but not to Wikipedia in particular. I don't have to justify why I'm not doing that.
http://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/eg2sk/top_ten_reasons_why_academics_do_not_contribute/
www.reddit.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2013-48
370278
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:MQDOJQWFL57TRQGHLKBJFE7D23WFAKNX
<urn:uuid:434c90e0-ae3c-4b7b-af55-36d16f5176dc>
2013-12-13T02:54:19Z
23.3.13.240
sha1:TODAZPY3U3RVUQNDOBD5J6NIWPBTAFX6
<urn:uuid:0651f454-9e5a-431b-bef4-25d48f42836d>
http://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/eg2sk/top_ten_reasons_why_academics_do_not_contribute/
response
<urn:uuid:827bbecb-d2a2-4f25-92d5-955dbe8709ba>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-33-133-15.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2013-48
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web with URLs provided by Blekko for Winter 2013
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf