Oluseyi: I don't understand why you think your consistent belligerence is necessary for discussion. Please be civil. Now on to the relevant material...

Quote:The point is that a specialist in a field is far more likely to be exposed to the latest thinking within his domain, which may invalidate previous material or contradict "common sense."

An academic may be "far more likely" to be exposed to the latest thinking within a domain; however, an academic is far more likely to maintain ideas about a subject regardless of how much evidence contradicts those ideas. After all, they've submitted papers to professional journals, lectured thousands of students, and promoted the perceived correctness of their interpretation of "reality". An academic is not likely to submit to the latest thinking. Additionally, much of the content in Wikipedia is researched, credible, and cited; however, like all "open source" activities such things cannot be forced. Think of each article in Wikipedia as a classroom. There are a number of students. Some students are good students while some are not-so-good and others are downright evil. The assignment for the class is to collaboratively research, document, and publish an essay concerning a subject using only objective facts. Some students will research, some will document, some will act only as editors, others as fact-checkers, and a few will try to ruin everyone's hard work, which is why there exists such systems as the Arbitration Committee.

Quote:I'm sure you're aware that the academic tradition is to engage dissenting opinion in discourse - sometimes very heated and provincial and petty discourse, but discourse nevertheless - examining its case for merit rather than simply attempting to discredit (though, as we all know, some academicians have stooped to the latter). If Wikipedia is not going to be open to the academic tradition of challenge and review, particularly of its own practices, then its larger worth as a bibliographic reference has to be called into question.

At Wikipedia there are Talk pages where editors may discuss and propose changes to the article. If an editor is bold in editing and corrects an article's problem that aligns with Wikipedia policies, then the change is likely to not be opposed; however, when a change is opposed, it is often removed to the Talk page for further discussion. If a so-called "expert" isn't willing to participate in the Wikipedia collaborative process, then I suggest that "expert" leave, forget about Wikipedia, and return to the appropriate channels of information publishing for professionals.

Quote:Citations of works do not imbue Wikipedia user profiles with social currency. Is there some sort of logical disconnect you can't traverse? If Richard Dyer were to sign up to Wikipedia as Richard.Dyer, how would his profile be accorded the necessary recognition within the Wikipedia participant community as a noted cinema studies and film theorist?

You're evading my question.

Wikipedia policy suggests that editors directly involved with a subject should not directly involve themselves with a subject's article. Moreover, an article on Wikipedia is the product of an iterative collaborative process where there can be many "authors" of an article. Recognition of Wikipedian authorship in an article is inappropriate for an enyclopedia. Professionals should not contribute their original research to Wikipedia directly. Professionals should use the appropriate channels, such as publishing information in an academic or professional journal, magazine, etc., so that Wikipedia editors may quote or cite the professionals' work. Larry Sanger understands this. Like an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is a filter which compacts information published through various media.

Quote:The level of knowledge across Wikipedia is inconsistent. It's very strong in the computer sciences, largely because it was built and is loved by geeks, but it's incredibly weak in something as common as cinema arts. Given that that's my discipline, I find Wikipedia much less useful.

The content of Wikipedia is the responsibility of the editors. If you'd rather complain instead of contribute, that's your choice and those of us that are rational will understand that you're only complaining about your intellectual laziness.

Quote:Wikipedia has the makings of a highly successful, universally applicable, constantly growing global encyclopedia, but "spontaneous contribution," just as in open source, can go only so far. In essence, Wikipedia needs to cathederalize to a certain extent, and it needs to popularize the fact that it has to attract more participants outside the core domain.

Dogmatic meritocracy isn't desired or needed for Wikipedia to be successful. Reducing the diffusion of responsibility, however, is necessary, and that can be done by promoting coexistence and collaboration rather than defining who editors should perceive as authoritative. Bottomline: dogmatic meritocracy is a slippery slope. The fact that Michael Jordan is an expert sportsman doesn't necessitate buying all the products he promotes simply because he's an expert sportsman.

Quote:In summary, I am not attacking Wikipedia, so put your haunches down. I am asking a series of questions and challenging a series of observed behaviors with a view to improving Wikipedia, justifying the investment of time and effort of a much larger number of people than current. If that bothers you, then maybe the problem is you and people like you and your irrational protectiveness of Wikipedia even more so than the Wikipedia system. The technology and social network effects of Wikipedia aren't any more complex than the Portland Pattern Repository, so get over yourselves.

I could say a lot of things that need to be said regarding your consistently poor behavior on these forums, but I think I'd be wasting my time.

[Edited by - Adraeus on April 1, 2005 12:04:50 AM]

Quote:Original post by Adraeus
Oluseyi: I don't understand why you think your consistent belligerence is necessary for discussion. Please be civil.

Oh, stop. Be civil?

Quote:If you'd rather complain instead of contribute, that's your choice and those of us that are rational will understand that you're only complaining about your intellectual laziness.

Yeah, civil.

Quote:I could say a lot of things that need to be said regarding your consistently poor behavior on these forums, but I think I'd be wasting my time.

And now we get to the root of the matter: you don't like me.

Frankly, I don't give a fuck. I don't think we need to like each other to discuss an issue, and I don't participate in the hypocrisy of enjoining civility while taking cowardly potshots at my opponent. I think there's a flaw in Wikipedia's system; you don't. Neither one of us is going to convince the other, as I'm not a fan of "community" network effects authoring consistently high quality. As with open source, the result is uneven and inconsistent: open source programs display technical sophistication and quality because those problems are, comparatively, easy, while the subjective aspects of usability and so forth require many more participants and much more structure. Wikipedia exhibits the exact same defects: the lack of organized, encouraged participation from those outside the "community" is hurting the product.

I'm not an idealist. I never have been, and that's why a lot of you don't like me. I have no problems with confrontation. In fact, I believe that it is a very useful tool - often a necessary one - for larger development, and the evidence bears me out (see the innumerable flame wars that accompany social network effects). So what if a decentralized mass of individuals have been able to author a remarkable resource? As a consumer, my question is if and how it can get better, how it can grow to meet my requirements.

I don't understand why this is so personal to you - and I've shown remarkable restrain in my comments, despite your charges of "belligerence." Don't make this personal, because it's not.