- This topic has 3 voices and 5 replies.
-
Posts
-
I had heard of a class editing a Wikipedia entry as part of a class project, but nothing of this caliber: Will Wikipedia replace the academic thesis?
...the Medical University in Poznan is exploring an even more ambitious initiative: a requirement to write Wikipedia articles that could entirely replace bachelors theses as early as this year.“We want to drop the requirement of writing a bachelor’s thesis,” dean Zbigniew Krasinski told local newspaper Gazeta Poznan. “These works contribute little, are about re-writing [not original research], and take up increasing amounts of space in the archives.”
The reasoning is that the traditional thesis simply gathers dust, and that putting it on Wikipedia makes the knowledge accessible to far more people. I would offer the observation, however, that the idea of a dust-gathering thesis has been around us for a long time; evidently, the idea behind the thesis is not to make waves of knowledge for the broader community, but simply to prove that the writer has what it takes to do the job. Second, this idea of putting knowledge to wider use on the internet is kind of why I started my site on the Great Awakening years ago; it was an old paper I wrote that I decided to make a web site out of. On the bright side, it's helped out a lot more people than it would have if it were stuck in a file on my computer. On the not-so-bright side, it's not like I was or am an expert on that subject, yet I am still considered an "authority" in some respects (simply due to the site) and am influencing the minds of thousands of people researching that topic. In the end, I guess, publishing knowledge like this is a double-edged sword.
My views on Wikipedia are evolving. While I still think it does not replace or even equal peer reviewed scholarship, if you stick to non-controversial topics then it is pretty good. I still would not cite it though.I have recently taken to doing some active editing on a select list of pages an topics I am knowledgeable about. I also started building an info page about the town in which I live. I am not devoting a lot of effort to it but it is fun to improve a page and then watch it so you can stop the idiots that put stuff up that is plain wrong. Many of the vandals are deliberate vandals either doing it for kicks or doing it to prove a point as I used to do. I changed my mind decided it was better to make sure what is there is accurate than to try and discredit the site because it is not going away and it is increasingly being used as a primary source of information for lots of people.
You are right that it is pretty good on non-controversial topics. It has many entries on obscure topics that are probably not found in normal encyclopedias, which is a bonus. I tell you - Encyclopedia Britannica could possibly have prevented the rise of Wikipedia if it had only changed its business model by offering its content online for free. Instead, it chose a "subscription-based model", effectively cutting off its content from the vast majority of internet users.
What really got me thinking was the recent article about Wikipedia and Military History that appeared in the JMH. Wikipedia does a very good job at drums & trumpets type battle and campaign history.
Still not convinced. I get fuming angry whenever I read Wikipedia entries involving European colonialism.
I had contemplated contributing to Wikipedia in the past, but I supposed I did not want to begin battling it out with those on the other side of the political spectrum in what could be an unending war of “corrections”.
I had contemplated contributing to Wikipedia in the past, but I supposed I did not want to begin battling it out with those on the other side of the political spectrum in what could be an unending war of "corrections".
It depends, ou still have to pick and choose which articles you are interested in. I have come to find out that most garbage info does get corrected pretty quick. Wikipedia can be useful but we still must be careful and critical and not always take it at face value.As to the anti-colonial bias, you are not going to escape it Ski. Whether it is right or wrong, that bias is now part of he conventional wisdom. If you point out that the colonies and the people in them did better under colonial rule you will just get beat up as a racist. Facts play no role whatsoever n that pseudo-debate.
