User:Andrewa/Why they do not want you to use Wikipedia

News sources
Once newspapers used the morgue file as their principle source of backstory. These days it's either the world wide web, or just Wikipedia. And Wikipedia is a lot less work, and gives better results. And it's quite legal provided they restate the information in their own words. (Or they could even just copy our text, provided that they attribute it and copyleft their own work. That's how a copyleft licence works.)

They get caught sometimes, see list of citogenesis incidents. Some of them are very funny.

But the funniest thing (all the best humour has a strong note of pathos) is when these news sources get huffy about mistakes Wikipedia makes.

See
 * https://observer.com/2018/10/wikipedia-nobel-prize-physics-donna-strickland/ Physicist Donna Strickland Had to Win a Nobel Prize to Get on Wikipedia (archived here)
 * https://www.businessinsider.com.au/wikipedia-rejected-donna-strickland-entry-before-nobel-prize-2018-10 Wikipedia rejected an entry on a physics Nobel laureate right up until she won, saying she wasn't famous enough (archived here)

Now Wikipedia is doing some soul-searching on this issue. Yes, it would have been good to have known that she was doing this groundbreaking research. But the way we normally find these things out is by reading sources such as the Observer and Business Insider. And they didn't know, either, and that's why we didn't know.

We explicitly depend on them, while they imply that nobody should depend on us. But we're trying to figure out whether we can do better, while they're just huffing that we're not doing their jobs for them. (Or at least, not well enough, and they'd like us to.)

We did our job. They stuffed up. And no, they don't like it. (And neither do we.)

Academia
Once University and college lecturers spent a lot of time and trouble compiling reading lists for their students. Using Wikipedia is a lot less work, and gives better results. But lists can be copyrighted, and ours are, so unless they attribute and copyleft the reading list (which they are of course more than welcome to do), it's not just dishonest but also illegal.

The dishonest ones
...they don't want you to know what they're doing. But it's not hard to figure it out, is it? Time wounds all heels.

But we should admit that there are also honest reasons for being suspicious of Wikipedia.

The honest ones
Contributing to Wikipedia can be daunting for an academic, or for any expert in fact but particularly the academic. The problem is simple: We don't publish original research. And that's exactly what they would most like, and would be most able, to contribute. And when their attempts to do so get knocked back by people who patently don't know as much about the subject as the expert does, and even readily admit the fact, it is extremely and understandably frustrating.

The restriction on original research is far more profound than it seems at first. In theory, our refusal to take much notice (we do take a little) of primary sources could even lead us to knowingly publish material that we know to be false.

In practice that doesn't seem to be a problem, perhaps surprisingly. Wikipedia wasn't really planned. It just happened, and it worked. And many experts do find that it works well for them too, once they learn the rules.

The key is, we do insist on verification from secondary sources (which for the most part do not need to be in English). If these can't be found, the material should not be here. Which again frustrates some academics!

External links for further reading

 * My essay on judgement. I suspect that in a few centuries my most important contribution to the Universe will be the good I have done through Wikipedia. And you?