I presented the following chart - which I constructed from David Weinberger's Everything is Miscellaneous - in a discussion about the institutional respectability (or lack of) for Wikipedia. It compares the online (copy-left) encyclopedia with Britannica, symbol of academic kosher-ness. For those of us unwilling to include citations or references from Wikipedia or grant it 'academic' status, we should at least ask ourselves:
- What's wrong with Wikipedia being authored by anonymous folks? Why can't we let the knowledge stand on its own?
- Why don't we give more credit to Wikipedia for at least being forthright about possible non-neutrality of articles? How many citable books do NOT include this (yet expect us to take 'their side' of the debate?)
- Why don't we credit Wikipedia for providing a discussion area where the issues can be thrashed out? And isn't the on-going, non-definitive (emergent?) nature of the articles a plus? Aren't these (again) yet another improvement over the standard 'acceptable' texts which are (wrongly) 'definitive' and can only point to more references (if at all) for the historical discussion?
- Why don't we commend the collaborative nature of the articles in Wikipedia? Why are we more impressed with articles which were written by just ONE person?
Finally, on a practical note, when mistakes are made, they are almost instantaneously corrected in Wikipedia - can't say the same for the rest. So, what's "academically inappropriate" about Wikipedia again?
There are two major reasons, Alwyn, why citations cannot be made from Wikipedia.
ReplyDelete1. Citations cannot change. If I make an argument and cite an article to make my point, and reader of my argument cannot go to the citation and discover the citation has changed. My argument would have gone moot because of this.
If my argument is no longer tenable because the article of the citation is no longer current, then I must be able to cite an article that mentions this. Without a permanence, one simply cannot cite!
2. Why should an anonymous article be considered of scientific and academic use? I am really curious about this one. Any ideas should be identifiable, even if it's identified as being "the Greeks discovered...". I cannot imagine mentioning 100 years later "an anonymous internet poster mentioned...".
Some food for thought! :)
Don't look now, Michael, but (on the issue of anonymity) WE are 'random strangers' and yet we can both have a civilised discussion, can't we? i.e. I really don't need to your full background (I only know 'Sensei Michael') yet I've found your comments helpful and I hope you found mine helpful too (regardless of whether you did a background check on me).
ReplyDeleteThus, I'd be a lot more optimistic about the future.
We are able to discuss now for two reasons.
ReplyDelete1. We are *not* academia, publishing a research paper.
2. We belong to the generation which can accept strangers and friendship over the internet.
If we are going to have to defend a thesis, for instance, our citation will totally collapse if it can be edited by Mr Anonymous a second later. And the generation before ours look at friendship a whole lot differently from us.
Like you, though, I look forward to that day when the word of the random hobo is given the same weight as His Excellency the President. I am not as optimistic as you are though - man is inherently biased.
Heh, you have a point there - yeah, it is not likely to "totally collapse". I was perhaps too extreme in that view.
ReplyDeleteI think it'd take a long time for conservative academia to reach that stage of utopia though. But who knows if one day Prof Alwyn Lau or Prof Michael Chan may take up the gauntlet of change!
oh, so it's you, Michael! gosh I'm pretty slow when it comes to aliases and pseudonyms (grin).
ReplyDeletethanks for visiting...yeah, it'll be exciting to see how it goes in the (near) future.
I think you should spend some time studying in a research dept. at a top 100 university. You will soon realise the painstaking research processes which go into the journals and articles which are subsequentially cited. These articles generally do not change from one day to another, they are not listed as "needs improvement". etc.
ReplyDeleteAcademic research is in a totally different league to wikipedia.
"It is because what matters on Wikipedia is not your sources but the "support of the community""
ReplyDeleteI like this and is essentially sums up the 'social nature of knowledge' emerging today.