I know even less about wikis than Neel Smith; in fact I know next to
nothing about them. But I think Neel touches on a key issue. Can it
be addressed by some ranking scheme that tells the reader at a glance
whether a given item is "what has just come to my mind" or "what a
group of experts after careful review have agreed is probably the
case or at least a tenable position."
But that is of course a lot of work for some group of somebodies.
On Aug 8, 2005, at 11:02, Neel Smith wrote:
> I don't have an especially deep familiarity with
> wikis, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm
> sceptical about the enthusiasm for wikis as scholarly
> resources.
>
> My limited experience with a couple of different wiki
> implementations suggests to me that they don't offer
> very rich data structures -- they seem to be text
> blobs about as limited in structure as HTML.
>
> In addition to limits in the kinds of data they
> handle, I have doubts about wikis as an environment
> for tracking data quality, and allowing editorial
> vetting.
>
> I know the theory is that by allowing collaborative
> work, wikis will get widespread contributions in part
> because their technical requirements are so low, and
> that if you have enough participants, the wiki will
> become self correcting.
>
> But I've been underwhelmed with the kinds of editorial
> tracking and vetting that most would-be scholarly
> wikis present.
>
> I get nervous about this precisely because I know I'm
> likely to turn to a wiki more quickly for something
> further from my areas of competence. It *is* really
> great to get instant access, even to Encyclopedia
> Britannica-level information, when I use an online
> wiki. But I compare my experience with my experience
> using an encyclopedia like the Dictionary of
> Scientific Biography -- the authors of articles are
> carefully selected, they regularly cite their primary
> sources, and include bibliographies with each article.
> I'm encouraged by the quality of the articles in
> areas I have some knowledge of to trust articles
> beyond my own areas of competence.
>
> It would be a shame if the ease of creating a wiki led
> us to give up on that kind of accountability and
> reliability -- as, at an extreme, some "anything goes"
> wikis do. And it would be a shame if the ease of
> creating a wiki diverted people's energies away from
> considering other kinds of digital resources.
>
> Neel
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
|